Talk:Taba Summit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Palestine (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Israel (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Blanking of section titled "Who ended the peace negotiations?"[edit]

--Timeshifter 06:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC). I am copying below my replies to the Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg comments on my user talk page.

Hello Timeshifter, I'm just letting you know that you are in danger of violating the WP:3RR policy on Taba summit. If you revert one more time you could be blocked from editing wikipedia.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I did not revert. Your edit comment after deleting a whole section of a wikipedia page was "rv OR [original research], we can not add controversial and unsourced material because you seem to think it is 'common knowledge')". By the way that section was written by several people, not just me. I first deleted the more controversial material since it was already covered by another wikipedia page. I added "citation needed" tags. You didn't like that and insisted on deleting the remaining part of that section. So I added the reference links you requested. I added quotes, too. So I don't see how you can claim original research now. See the revision difference between when you requested sourced material, and my addition of it. You then deleted the requested sourced material that you asked for. You just blanked that whole section in violation of the wikipedia policy on vandalism: WP:VANDAL. See talk page at Taba summit before blanking again. --Timeshifter 06:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Your later edit comment was: "removing pov, your sources do not support your conclusion so this is still OR." There was no conclusion made after I added the sourced material. The section then consisted only of quotes with sources. But to further clarify I just added this sentence to the top of that section: "The issue of who ended the negotiations is disputed. There is no consensus. Here are some perspectives:" Feel free to add more perspectives. --Timeshifter 07:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding citation requested tags does not give a green light to add original research. Furthermore, the references you added did not support the larger argument of the section, when you use references to prove a novel conclusion it is considered original research. It is a difficult policy to understand, I also had a lot of trouble with it when I first began editing wikipedia. Also, please do not accuse others of vandalism when it is obvious that it is not the case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no conclusion made after I deleted all the previous info in that section and only put quotes with references for them. Show me the conclusions in my last revision. BlueDome also asked the same thing on the talk page: "The section starts with 'The issue of who ended the negotiations is disputed. There is no consensus. Here are some perspectives:' I do not see other conclusions, what are you referring to?" And you have not discussed anything at all on the Taba summit talk page yet. --Timeshifter 22:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Amoruso blanked the new sourced section. I left this message on Amoruso's user talk page:

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content, as you did to Taba Summit. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

The above paragraph is from this standard warning template for blanking: {{subst:Blank2}}. On December 3, 2006, as this revision difference shows, you blanked (deleted) a whole section of a wikipedia page. That is usually considered vandalism especially when you do not present a wikipedia guideline reason first on a talk page. Especially for such a major deletion of sourced material. You also deleted some reference link details in other sections. --Timeshifter 07:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The message is not appropriate obviously and quite... odd you'd think it is. Please don't add non encyclopedic material to articles again. Cheers. Amoruso 07:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
--Timeshifter 07:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC). I added the following to your user talk page:

Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, as you did to Taba Summit, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

The above paragraph is from this next-level-up standard warning template for blanking: {{subst:Blank3}}. On December 3, 2006, as this revision difference shows, you again blanked (deleted) a whole section of a wikipedia page. --Timeshifter 07:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Because you keep blanking this wikipedia page:

Stop hand.svg

This is your last warning.
The next time you blank a page, as you did to Taba Summit, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

See: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings. "When users behave in a manner which is outside Wikipedia norms, they are often warned on their talk page. It is generally agreed that users who receive such warnings should not remove them from their talk page if they are valid." --Timeshifter 08:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Blanking is deleting entire sections of entire articles for no other purpose than to disrupt Wikipedia. In this case, a paragraph consisting entirely of POV conclusions with questionable citations that don't support the conclusion was deleted. ----Leifern 13:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You are free to produce references for different POVs, of course, but you can not remove them. And you should somehow support that the references are "questionable".--BlueDome 13:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue isn't the references. It's the conclusions that are drawn from them. The excised paragraph tries to "prove" that Israel was to blame for the failure of the Taba summit, and the references don't substantiate this. It would be kind of silly to delete the text but keep the references, after all. --Leifern 13:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The section starts with "The issue of who ended the negotiations is disputed. There is no consensus. Here are some perspectives:" I do not see other conclusions, what are you referring to?--BlueDome 13:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
As the extensive Talk can testify to, the arrangement of the passages in the paragraph, originally inserted by user:Timeshifter, lends undue weight to a nonneutral point of view and constitutes original research. I appreciate that these policies are nuanced, and that it isn't always immediately obvious what the problem is. I also point out that you shouldn't call a content dispute vandalism, a term with a very specific meaning. I hope that you can see what the issue is here and why we cannot include such material. TewfikTalk 00:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You are going by what people said about past changes without actually discussing the current info in the section. The only real discussion has been between Moshe and me. We seem to have resolved our problems. He hasn't complained about the current info in the section. So what exactly do you have a problem with concerning the current info? Nothing remains of the old info that was in that section. By the way, your above comment is the first reason you have given for your repeated deletions. --Timeshifter 01:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have been too busy to edit very much recently, please do not take that as tacit approval for your actions.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Your user contribution page says differently:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moshe_Constantine_Hassan_Al-Silverburg
But maybe those many other wikipedia pages you edited in the last few days had higher priority. So do you have any problems with my last revision of that section? Please be specific. I have edited that section due to your previous problems with it. Nothing remains in that section from when you first discussed it. It is all new material. --Timeshifter 13:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually my contribution page agrees with me as it illustrates that I have made relatively few edits, and almost all of them have been wiki-gnome type stuff, anyways I find it rather comical that you are trying to inform me about what I agree with.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
(Answer to Tewfik) I do not agree with you. I do not see how the section could be non-NPOV, and I do not see consensus for its removal.--BlueDome 18:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry you can not see the pov, but the section essentially uses references to prove a novel thesis, that is called original research and it is not necessary to achieve consensus when removing it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. Listing sources, without drawing conslusions, is not original research.--BlueDome 20:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Except the passage is making a conclusion that is not mentioned in any other single source, this is against policy.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Where? I have asked already for this conclusion, but nobody cared to show it. This is because the conclusion you are referring to does not exist but in your mind: this is the true Original research!--BlueDome 21:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

New section, "How close did Taba Summit come to a peace agreement?"[edit]

--Timeshifter 09:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC). I am going to put these 2 quotes below in a different section. They are background context in the section "Who ended the peace negotiations?", and it can be argued that they need to be in separate section. It can not be plausibly argued that it is original research. Because this viewpoint is sourced from multiple sources. The quotes reinforce the significant viewpoint that the Taba Summit came the closest ever to achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

-
A PBS page [1] has this:
But they had run out of political time. They couldn't conclude an agreement with Clinton now out of office and Barak standing for reelection in two weeks. "We made progress, substantial progress. We are closer than ever to the possibility of striking a final deal," said Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's negotiator. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, said, "My heart aches because I know we were so close. We need six more weeks to conclude the drafting of the agreement."
("frontline: shattered dreams of peace: the negotiations | PBS".)
-
From the Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture David Matz writes [2] concerning a joint statement [3]:
The Taba negotiation began on Sunday evening, January 21, and ended on Saturday afternoon, January 27 [2001]. At the closing press conference, the parties issued this joint statement: “The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli election.”
("Trying to Understand the Taba Talks". By David Matz. Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture. Vol.10 No.3 2003.) --Timeshifter 09:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Remaining quote[edit]

--Timeshifter 10:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC). Concerning the remaining quote below from the section "Who ended the peace negotiations?" I will put other quotes from other media, people, or groups agreeing with this viewpoint:

-
Uri Avnery of the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom wrote [4]: "It was not Arafat who broke off the talks at this critical moment, when the light at the end of the tunnel was clearly visible to the negotiators, but Barak. He ordered his men to break off and return home."
("Politicus Interruptus". By Uri Avnery. Gush Shalom. Feb. 23, 2002.)
-

As I wrote before this is but one significant viewpoint. And wikipedia wants significant viewpoints represented in its articles. The issue of who ended the negotiations is disputed. There is no consensus.

The quoted viewpoint from an article by one leader of an Israeli peace group is not original research, and does not require agreement by other media, peace groups, etc. in order to be a significant viewpoint meriting inclusion in a wikipedia article. But if Moshe and others want more than one source for each viewpoint, then that can be accommodated. It is not required by wikipedia to have more than one quote in order to prove that something is not original research. But if that will stop the blanking then I will find more quotes and sources. --Timeshifter 10:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

More discussion started on user talk page[edit]

[More discussion below copied from my user talk page. The first part has the rewritten section "Who ended the peace negotiations?" that was repeatedly blanked. First by Amoruso, then Viriditas, then Tewfik, and then Moshe.]

--Timeshifter 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC). Here below is my last revision of the section "Who ended the peace negotiations?" I had deleted all that was there previously. So there was nothing there from when you [Moshe] blanked the whole section. You did not blank this revision below [at the time this was written Dec. 4, 2006. Moshe started deleting it Dec. 8, 2006]. Amoruso did, though. 3 times in 24 hours. I pulled out and indented the reference links below, and put them in parentheses, so that people can see and follow them.

---

The issue of who ended the negotiations is disputed. There is no consensus. Here are some perspectives:
-
Uri Avnery of the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom wrote [4]: "It was not Arafat who broke off the talks at this critical moment, when the light at the end of the tunnel was clearly visible to the negotiators, but Barak. He ordered his men to break off and return home."
("Politicus Interruptus". By Uri Avnery. Gush Shalom. Feb. 23, 2002.)
-
A PBS page [1] has this:
But they had run out of political time. They couldn't conclude an agreement with Clinton now out of office and Barak standing for reelection in two weeks. "We made progress, substantial progress. We are closer than ever to the possibility of striking a final deal," said Shlomo Ben-Ami, Israel's negotiator. Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator, said, "My heart aches because I know we were so close. We need six more weeks to conclude the drafting of the agreement."
("frontline: shattered dreams of peace: the negotiations | PBS".)
-
From the Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture David Matz writes [2] concerning a joint statement [3]:
The Taba negotiation began on Sunday evening, January 21, and ended on Saturday afternoon, January 27 [2001]. At the closing press conference, the parties issued this joint statement: “The sides declare that they have never been closer to reaching an agreement and it is thus our shared belief that the remaining gaps could be bridged with the resumption of negotiations following the Israeli election.”
("Trying to Understand the Taba Talks". By David Matz. Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture. Vol.10 No.3 2003.)
-

--- --Timeshifter 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)




Regarding reversions[1] made on December 03, 2006 to Taba Summit article

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Nearly Headless Nick 12:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting blanking vandalism can be done as many times as necessary according to WP:VANDAL. The only question is whether it is blanking vandalism or not. Amoruso was not engaging in any discussion on the talk page, so it is blanking vandalism. I think you should be blocking him not me. In fact I request a block of Amoruso and Leifern since they are tag-teaming in their blanking vandalism. I went through all the blanking warning templates up to the final warning. According to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism I followed all the instructions necessary to make this request. Leifern took over for Amoruso and is not replying in substance to BlueDome. And Leifern is blanking still without resolving anything in discussion first. That is the polite thing to do. Talk first, and then make changes, before resorting to blanking first, and then non-substantial discussion later. --Timeshifter 22:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Someone else is blanking that section without discussion on the talk page. Tewfik blanked what BlueDome put up in that section. I believe this comes under some kind of complex vandalism guideline. The "complex" link on WP:VANDAL goes to this page: Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation. --Timeshifter 22:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I just checked the edit history again. Amoruso started the reverting of the completely new material in that section in question. There was nothing old remaining in that section after I replaced it. At that point no one had reverted anything 3 times in 24 hours. And Moshe did not revert that completely new section. It seems the blanking baton was passed to Amoruso. Amoruso was the first person to revert 3 times. It seems that his use of the word "non encyclopedic" in an edit comment, and on the article talk page, swayed your judgement more than my honest attempts at discussion on the talk page, and my use of the official blanking templates on the article talk page and on Amoruso's user talk page. I also mentioned the blanking in my edit comments. I think you blocked the wrong person. And I am appealing for a ruling from other administrators on this. The use of the phrase "non encyclopedic" should not give license to Amoruso to blank 3 times in a row. His edit comments also said "3RR" and "4RR", which were inaccurate. So I humbly say to you, Nearly Headless Nick, or Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, I think you have been fooled. Amoruso first reverted the new material in that section. Then he reverted it 2 more times. His 3rd time was the time where he left the edit comment "4RR". When I reverted just after that it was my third time. That I admit to. But I thought reverting obvious vandalism allowed breaking the 3RR rule. From the WP:VANDAL page:
Blanking. Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit. However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary. Due to the possibility of unexplained good-faith content removal, template:test1a or template:blank, as appropriate, should normally be used as initial warnings for ordinary content removals not involving any circumstances that would merit stronger warnings.
I believe a 2-word "non encyclopedic" edit comment, and talk page comment, is frivolous. And since Amoruso first broke the 3RR rule, I ask that he also be blocked for 24 hours, as I have been blocked. --Timeshifter 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
On checking the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR page again I find this: "If you violate the three revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours sysops may block you for up to 24 hours. In cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally." I had not done a 4th revert. See the edit history and the above notes to see why. Amoruso had 3 reverts first, and then I followed with a 3rd revert. As I said above, I honestly thought Amoruso was engaged in simple blanking vandalism. He still hasn't really engaged on the talk page with anyone, including someone named BlueDome. BlueDome is not me, by the way. It seems there is a new series of blanking vandalism going on by Tewfik. I am not a part of that fight since I am blocked. Tewfik has not justified his blanking at all on the talk page. And it seems Leifern is not engaging honestly with BlueDome on the talk page. There are no conclusions as claimed by Leifern. See what I last had in the blanked section. It is posted higher up in reply to Moshe. Or go to this revision difference. --Timeshifter 19:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

---

It seems I am being blocked past the 24 hour period. When I try to edit pages I get a message that says I am autoblocked, and that to get unblocked I should put this template below on the bottom of my user page. --Timeshifter 18:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Autoblock lifted. It happened because you tried to edit while you were blocked. Tsk tsk... -- Fut.Perf. 20:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Buried deep on another page is something about 24-hour autoblocking starting when one tries to edit a page while blocked. If one has never been blocked before, then one does not know that one can't edit a page until one tries to edit a page. So then one reads their user page and finds out that they are blocked for a period of time. In my case for 24 hours. Then I come back after that 24-hour period and find that I am still blocked. Only by much searching through many wikipedia pages does one learn of this secondary autoblock that extends past the first 24 hour block. This is a great way for a blanking team to discourage people and info they dislike from getting on certain pages. Get a blocking newbie like me (with around a thousand edits and very few complaints against me) to revert their blanking vandalism 3 times in 24 hours, and then have to run this gauntlet of unintended (on wikipedia's part) harassment. It is time to change the autoblocking system so that people know they are being blocked for more time beyond what the block states on one's user page. Also, the sections defining simple vandalism need to be rewritten so that it is clear that blanking is not really considered simple vandalism that can be reverted many times in a day just as graffiti can be reverted as often as necessary. Blanking vandalism has to go through the warning template system, but spread out beyond the 24 hour period in order to avoid 3RR traps. Any editor can feel free to copy this info from my user page and use it in discussion concerning clarifying some of these wikipedia policies. --Timeshifter 20:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey, don't take my comment too seriously... :-) I know, the autoblock functionality is messy - it's actually quite difficult to understand for us admins too... Does the system really not tell you you're blocked before you try to edit? I didn't know that. Fut.Perf. 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for unblocking the autoblock. Yes, it is true that one does not know that one can't edit until one tries to edit. There is a "new message" note, but when one gets new messages one can ignore reading it temporarily if one wants to check some ongoing wikipedia projects. When one finally goes to read the new message and finds the block it doesn't say anything about the block being extended if one clicks on an edit button. It just says you can't edit. Anybody with simple curiosity will want to see what happens when one clicks an edit button. It says you can't edit, but does not say that your block was just extended further for clicking an edit button. Then one goes to find out where one can complain if one feels wronged by the block. As I did. I went to the admin's talk page and tried to leave a note there. I clicked that edit button to try to leave a note. No luck there. Then I went to my user talk page figuring that would be the last place to be blocked and I was right. I could click that edit button, and could edit that page. I suggest noting the autoblock timing in the same block log as the original block. I also suggest some text there explaining that the block will be extended if one tries to edit anything except one's user talk page. --Timeshifter 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... Maybe this is something we ought to bring to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). If it should be changed, it would have to be done by the developers. Fut.Perf. 21:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Requests for comment this section is created to get comments from other editors. The request was placed in this page: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography.

The dispute is about whether the quotes and references at the top of the section directly above can be placed in the Taba Summit article. Specifically in 2 sections titled "How close did Taba Summit come to a peace agreement?" and "Who ended the peace negotiations?" See previous discussion for the particulars. 13:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Argument in favour of the section[edit]

The section is under blanking menace because some people claims it goes against WP:OR and WP:NPOV. What is OR (Original Research)? It is a policy of Wikipedia that says (emphasis mine):

Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position.

What is NPOV (Neutral Point Of View)? It is a policy of Wikipedia that says:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

So, let's examine the section under investigation, and let'see if it breaks any WP policy. The section lists some quotes, without drawing any conclusion; if any conclusion exists in the section, it is drawn in the mind of the reader, but that is outside Wikipedia policy valitdity :)

  • Each of the quotes has been published, and no analysis is given, so there is no break of OR;
  • As far as I understand the matter, the section represents views fairly, proportionately and without bias. Note that Wikipedia NPOV policy does not require to remove POVs, but to present them fairly and proportionately.

On the basis of the above considerations, I think the section must be restored: it is its removal that goes against WP philosophy, as relevant and neutral information would be removed together with the section.--[[BlueDome]] 19:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

...I agree with you that it appears no policy was violated as far as NPOV and POV. The information is cited and shares relevant and timely information. My comment refers to the length of that first sentence. I found it difficult to follow. Ms. Antoinette Johnson 22:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside comments[edit]

  • I don't see much basis for removing all these information. The information is sourced, so I don't see why people are calling it original research. The information would probably have to be put in a more neutral setting, but that by itself doesn't warrant removing it. Taxico 05:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Whatever you guys decide, please note that "Who ended the peace negotiations?" is one of the most important and sought after questions to those of us interested in learning about the Taba Summit. It does seem that repeatedly blanking a page, rather than trying to improve an article by pointing out issues and making slight adjustments when needed, is against the open spirit of Wikipedia. Whatever problems Timeshifter's section may have, it does not look to me like a deliberate attempt to be unfair, so it should not be repeatedly blanked. Even articles that do contain original research (see Polyphasic Sleep) are tagged to point out this problem, not blanked out. Please put aside your differences in a way where an attempt at answering the important question of "Who ended the discussions?" can be provided! Thanks! Murftown 1:11 PM, 16 Jan 2007 (US Central Time)
  • Some of the statements and edits make little sense. The article claims the existence of nonexistent controversies, and does not support this. "The issue of who ended the negotiations is disputed. There is no consensus and myriad perspectives." is not true. There is no dispute, there is and always has been a consensus. Barak ended the negotiations, shortly before they would have ended with Sharon becoming PM. There is a statement to that effect on the Israeli government website. Maybe there is a dispute about who is to blame - that Arafat's speech in Davos (IIRC) caused Barak to end them, that the Palestinians (or the Israelis) were unreasonable etc., but that is something different. As the article makes clear, most sources from both sides have always said that what happened is time ran out. It is obvious, but it is also true. Now it says "Reasons for the Impasse" What impasse? Everyone has always said that they were productive negotiations, the majority say very productive.
What I think should be done: Merge this section into the "End of the negotiations" above - the best title for the material. Matz quoting part of the joint statement should be replaced by adding the quoted part to the joint statement quote in the "End" section above. Maybe just keep him as a link, or use something else he says.
After "End of Negotiations" is "Barak's Negation of the talks" which starts "Barak went even further". The title is accurate, but this first sentence makes no sense, as Barak is "negating" what is written in "End." To partly counterpose Barak I'd like to add a quote on Taba from Bernard Wasserstein's book Israelis and Palestinians .. , to the effect that it is a well-known principle that once something is on the table, it never can be taken completely off. Maybe incorporate this too into the end section, with a title like "end and aftermath of the negotiations."
Most of what is in "Summary" should be incorporated above in the introduction, to make the article basically chronologically ordered. I think the above should make the article shorter, more accurate and less repetitive and confusing.John Z 05:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Taba summit vs Taba Summit[edit]

Why is "Taba summit" even in use? It seems to be a proper noun and both words should be capitalized. Somebody even went so far as to add "Taba Summit" in the also-known-as names. It seems to me like "Taba summit" should never be used. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b "frontline: shattered dreams of peace: the negotiations | PBS".
  2. ^ a b "Trying to Understand the Taba Talks". By David Matz. Palestine - Israel Journal of Politics, Economics and Culture. Vol.10 No.3 2003.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference jointstatement was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ a b "Politicus Interruptus". By Uri Avnery. Gush Shalom. Feb. 23, 2002.