Jump to content

Talk:2010–2011 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Palesitinan militant campaign

[edit]

This section should be moved to after the partial freeze section. (1) It breaks up the flow between the main section on the Talks and the partial Freeze. The Talks ended because the Israel's decision not to extend the freeze, so the flow is important there. (2) The Palestinian violence campaign is also less important for the reason that its impact on the Talks so far have been minimal while the impact of the cessation of the partial freeze has been quite important.

Also for this second reason, it should be shortened to no more than one paragraph at most. It just seems out of place here--basically an article describing diplomatic events. Any longer and it's an undue weight issue and an OR issue.--NYCJosh (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the concept of original research? A lot of your contributions failed to represent the source clearly and often included your own words and ideas. The violence started in August, well before the settlement freeze expired. And the PA refused to negotiate anyway during the 10+ month settlement freeze. There is little evidence to suggest the talks ended because of expired settlement freeze since the freeze was rejected from the get-go. We as editors cannot link the freeze with violence. The militancy campaign by Hamas and others has not been attributed to the settlement freeze or its expiration by mainstream commentators or Hamas leaders themselves. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"There is little evidence to suggest the talks ended because of expired settlement freeze since the freeze was rejected from the get-go." Really? That's a pretty interesting view. Are you questioning the notion that the talks broke down because of the non-renewal of the freeze? I can cite 1000 RS that say so. I think it's a fringe view to try to argue the other way. In any event, my comment has to do with the order of sections, not causation.
"We as editors cannot link the freeze with violence." I never claimed we should. What are you talking about?
"The violence started in August, well before the settlement freeze expired." That might be true, and chronological order should be a factor but not the most important one. The most impotant factor is to provide a somewhat coherent article that doesn't confuse the reader. This is an encyclopedia, not a timeline.--NYCJosh (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary inferred the violence is linked to the settlement construction. That is your reasoning for moving it below the section. No sources or Hamas leaders have even remotely suggested settlement construction is somehow a factor in the militancy campaign. And again, editors cannot design their own article in terms of assigning where sections should go. When in doubt, refer to WP:SS. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting statement: "Your summary inferred the violence is linked to the settlement construction. That is your reasoning for moving it below the section." How? I previously asked you to explain but you just repeated this bizarre statement. Also, you did not respond to any of my points supporting the moving of the section. SS is good, but you did not explain how you think it supports you. Before I ask for some outside help to settle this, I would like give you another chance to explain your position.--NYCJosh (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about I, a different user, offer perhaps a more reasonable explanation. For ease of people reading the article, it would be best to have events in chronological order, not order of impact. The earliest cited date on the militancy campaign reads August 31, 2010, while the article states the settlement freeze ended on September 26. The chronology of information is more important than the flow of cause and effect (and some opinions differ on why the talks 'ended,' they have not officially ended yet.), as it would be confusing to a reader to read about the settlement freeze in September 26, then read on to a militancy campaign in late August. As such, the article is fine in this order. The militancy campaign section is not very long as it is, and does not need to be shortened. Does this reasoning satisfy your request? Gaandolf (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lieberman's GA address

[edit]

Lieberman's speech at the UN setting forth his view of a two state solution should be added. It's important because he is the FM making a major speech at the UN proposing a seemingly divergent view from Netanyahu's two state approach and the PM doesn't reject it. Commentators have observed that this may mean that the Israel govt's position may include more than one approach to the two state solution. Also, commentators have stated that this may mean that the right wing flank of Netanyahu's govt may not support a conventional two state should Netanyahu try to go with the latter.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need an entire article

[edit]

for conversations that endured for less than a month? --Againme (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The talks never officially ended yet. Technically, as of January 2011, the talks have been going on for over three months. Gaandolf (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-neutral and biased lead section?

[edit]

Brewcrewer, I see that you have on a number occasions have reverted my edits, I think that we have stop reverting and discuss it here. The lead section is non-neutral and biased, it is 99% inclided towards allegation that Israel pursues the peace negotiation, but Palestinians reject every and each "peace proposals" just because they refuse without any reason. Israel's refuse to extend freeze, has been viewed as impediment to peace even by Israel's closest ally - US, also EU voiced their critisism over the freeze issue. The lead section has to be re-written in neutral tone.-- Jim Fitzgerald post 16:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the problem is. The freeze issue, which is important, is in the lead. So are other things, which are also important. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Сould you be more specific pls?-- Jim Fitzgerald post 19:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the first paragraph of the article: "The 2010 direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority took place between early and late September 2010, between United States President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmud Abbas and ended when Netanyahu refused to extend the freeze for settlements in the West Bank." The very first paragraph mentions nothing that could be seen as anti-Palestinian, and almost seems to pin more blame on Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaandolf (talk • contribs) 22:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV and biased

[edit]

This article is obviously written by a pro-israeli, second part of this article focus on a small group that want to derail the peace talks for example, why is that so significant to start an article with?NPz1 (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas is not a small group, it is a large terrorist organization in control of the Gaza Strip. The section is showing efforts by terrorists specifically to derail the peace process; basically showing the opinion that some do not agree that there should be peace talks. If the article was truly biased, there would not be a section of international condemnation of Israel's refusal to continue the settlement freeze. Gaandolf (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you just proved my point right away, anyone else what to contribute with some more neutral standpoints?NPz1 (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010-2011?

[edit]

While I know it may be a stretch to claim the talks still continue, they have never officially ended yet, so shouldn't the title read "...in 2010-2011"? If so, please change it to read as such. Gaandolf (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -Passargea (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by Gaandolf

[edit]

It seems like the user Gaandolf have vandalized the article by for example remvoing the "international reactions" part. This part was neutral and thorough and should be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NPz1 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These talks were in 2010

[edit]

These talks were in 2010 so I think the title should change back to that. The title would also be better if it was like 2013 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks. --IRISZOOM (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sovereignty

[edit]

We seem to have a "new" editor who keeps editing to make it seem as if Israel has sovereignty over Jerusalem, something widely known to be false. The source does use the word sovereignty but this propaganda as is to be expected coming from such groups and should just be ignored or in the very least, requires quotation marks. Sepsis II (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just reverted the edit but I expect him to continue and then you can't do something other than contact the admins. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Israeli sovereignties in Jerusalem (at least west Jerusalem ) is far from a fringe view. More importantly, that sentence is a newspaper reporting on a survey question that uses that word - you can't change that word just because you disagree with it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny Xmas (talk • contribs) 17:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read for example Positions on Jerusalem. It doesn't matter if that's the word used because it still not accepted to write that they are under "Israeli sovereignty". That is not the case.
Searching for "Israeli sovereignty" and looking at the hits you get, you see so much bias like here. Even an article about settlements have that wording. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the survey question uses that word and a newspaper reported on the survey question. You cannot chane the words used in the survey because you don't like them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny Xmas (talk • contribs) 18:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's about the survey. Is it not? You just reverted here, though there is no survey there. It's obvious why you are doing it. As I've said, it doesn't matter how it's described, it still is incorrect to present it here as a fact that Jerusalem "are under Israeli sovereignty". It's a different thing to write that the question was asked in that way. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010–11 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010–11 Israeli–Palestinian peace talks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

[edit]

Change “are taking place” to “took place throughout 2010” in the introductory sentence to avoid confusion. 108.176.109.107 (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Amirah talk 16:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 December 2023

[edit]

In the section about the reactions of the palestinian public I think a "the" is missing in the end of the first part of the section.

"highly supported, most Palestinians supported idea of peace talks over violence."

Should there be a "the" before idea? Or perhaps make "idea" be "ideas" just so it reads better. NascentSpace (talk) 00:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cannolis (talk) 00:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! NascentSpace (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010–2011_Israeli–Palestinian_peace_talks&oldid=1214117093"