Jump to content

Talk:Israel–Morocco normalization agreement

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

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Thepharoah17 (talk) and Feminist (talk). Nominated by Feminist (talk) at 18:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article reports that the UN says its position is "unchanged", with a message "to avoid any action that could further aggravate a tense situation", implying disapproval of the new US position. ALT2 is notable because Inhofe is generally known as close to Trump and his administration. A DYK hook does not have to be reflective of all of the article's viewpoints as a whole, as long as the hook, viewed in isolation, meets neutrality requirements. feminist (talk) free Hong Kong 04:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As to the first hook - I looked at it again, and at the effort in the above statement to demonstrate that the hook reflects accurately what the article says, and still believe it does not.
As to ALT1 (I apologize-that is what I was referring to, not ALT2), it is not at all a neutral reflection of what the article states - though it would be fine if it were to say it were condemned by some parties and lauded by some parties. We should not be using DYK to give a mistaken impression of what the article says-that's contrary to our goals, and simply inappropriate.
I don't have a problem with the language of ALT2, which I see as the only acceptable hook-sorry for the confusion.
Another ALT that would be acceptable in my view is simply ALT 2A " ... that as part of the Israel–Morocco normalization agreement, the US agreed to recognize Morocco's claim to Western Sahara."
2604:2000:E010:1100:7462:CB4D:B27A:20DE (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the normalization agreement has received both statements of support and opposition, but I don't think any country has specifically said anything positive about the US's recognition of Morocco's claim over Western Sahara? For what it's worth, I consider Al Jazeera to be a biased source on any issue relating to Israel, though this particular article is reliable for what it is used to support. feminist (talk) free Hong Kong 12:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find the recognition of the Western Sahara claim to be hooky enough, perhaps adding a subsequent clause to the hooks dilutes the impact of this change. The hooks could use a link to Political status of Western Sahara. That said, the article is not in great shape. It's a poorly organised stub, and needs to be reworked and could use a bit more expansion. The source used for the Western Sahara recognition doesn't mention the topic. CMD (talk) 05:43, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed ALT3 above. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: I have expanded the article a bit to provide some context and more details. Other editors are of course welcome to aid in its expansion. Regarding ALT3, I have slight concerns that non-Americans may not be sufficiently aware of what "bipartisan" means in the context of American politics. feminist (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feminist, we could link Bipartisanship? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The new structure is an improvement, but the article is still mixing up the Reuters sources, and thus mixing up definite results of the agreement such as the recognition and potentially unrelated effects such as the drone sails. I'm also surprised it doesn't mention the commitment for a US embassy in the Western Sahara, which is a concrete statement of recognition. For the hook, I continue to suggest leaving reactions and other opinions to the article rather than the hook. CMD (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree w CMD's observation that "I find the recognition of the Western Sahara claim to be hooky enough, perhaps adding a subsequent clause to the hooks dilutes the impact of this change."2604:2000:E010:1100:6014:F444:B44D:4B1D (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Average readers will not understand the huge significance of this, with the Trump administration having unilaterally broken ranks with a half-century-old global consensus. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason this is making the news at all is because of Trump's giveaway recognition, approved of by no-one so far. The UN will discuss it on Monday, why not wait for input from that.https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2020/12/western-sahara-consultations-7.phpSelfstudier (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So after the meeting (closed door) only new thing is South African ambassador comments to the press after:- "decisions contrary to multilateral collective decisions must be discouraged and unequivocally disregarded. We believe that any recognition of Western Sahara as part of Morocco is tantamount to recognizing illegality as such recognition is incompatible with international law," he said.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-usa-morocco-un/u-n-security-council-talks-western-sahara-after-trump-policy-switch-idUSKBN28W01B Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-morocco-to-israel-normalization-pact-not-part-of-trump-brokered-abraham-accords-1.9392662 and now there is this.!.Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed ALT4 above. I think it most neutral --Shrike (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO ALT4 is best, in part because it is most neutral, but also because it is most hooky. 2603:7000:2143:8500:949A:D11A:56E8:1AB8 (talk) 08:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it is the least notable part of the topic. Per our article Israel–Morocco relations, this event has changed little about the relations between Morocco and Israel. But the proposed change of status of Western Sahara is potentially seismic for global international relations. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, I wouldn't point to a wp article as a source. Second, this article suggests that the Trump position may be of no consequence, if it is at odds with the UN position--which may perhaps be something less than "potentially seismic" impact. Third, as has been pointed out, Biden can in a month switch the US position on the Western Sahara .. which isn't really on the tip of everyone's tongue ... sort of what our former Libertarian candidate might call the "Aleppo" of the moment. I think its pretty clear that the Israel-Morocco actual agreement is of greater moment. But others can judge. 2603:7000:2143:8500:875:774:88D6:7C29 (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree that the normalization, which Morocco itself denies is a normalization, is of any great consequence, nothing has really changed that much except that most commentators agree that Morocco got a sweetie from Trump that it should not have got. Morocco has gone out of its way to say that the deal is a package so what happens to the "normalization" if the package gets changed? The only notable aspect of this "deal" other than the sweetie is that it is subject to a full court press from the Trump admin looking for a cheap policy win, claiming it is a part of the Abraham Accords (it isn't) that it's a peace agreement (it isn't), that embassies will be exchanged (they won't), Kushner visit and so on. And while the impact at the UN may not be "seismic" this is not the first time that the US (via Trump) has in effect contradicted its own signature at the UN and that will have consequences.Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like subjective OR (its a "sweetie," "Trump admin looking for a cheap policy win," "ot isn't" part of the Abraham Accords, "Kushner visit," "Trump .. has contradicted .. own signature," "will have consequences"). This editor's subjective view isn't the sort of thing we should base these decisions on. This is an article about the Agreement. The hook should relate to the Agreement. And the hook asserting "bipartisan domestic and international opposition" ignores the domestic (two of the three senators speaking-and not sure what "bipartisan" has to do with this anyway) and international (many countries) support - also seems as subjective as the prior editor's comments.2603:7000:2143:8500:481B:DDBA:F6D9:9AB9 (talk) 09:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OR is allowed on talk pages and not allowed in the article, as you have been doing. You may not like my wording but it reflects the sources I have provided. ALT 3 remains the best hook. And your unsigned ALT 5 is "about the agreement", how, exactly? Selfstudier (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good Hook I support either 4 or 5 --Shrike (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This hook is incorrect, as "The decision to add Jewish history and culture to lessons was discreetly launched before the diplomatic deal was announced."[3] I like the idea - it is certainly notable (and hard to believe) that the country of origin of the second-largest Jewish ethnic group in Israel had not previously taught any Jewish history - but it seems strange to have a hook about a topic that is not directly linked to the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion above.[4] Onceinawhile (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ALT2a and ALT4 appear to meet criteria and are mentioned in the article. As the nominator, I obviously can't review them. feminist (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hooks ALT2a and ALT4 are interesting, verifiable, and neutral. Article was new enough at time of nomination, and is long enough. Neutrally written, no sourcing issues, no copyvio. QPQ done. Edge3 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Israel–Morocco normalization agreement/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Mr. Lechkar (talk · contribs) 03:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: SSSB (talk · contribs) 22:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one on. Should be interesting. SSSB (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Comments

[edit]

Needs rectifying for promotion

[edit]

Other suggestions

[edit]
  • "a joint declaration was signed pledging to quickly begin direct flights," The word quickly is incredibly vague. Either cut the word quickly (becuase it doesn't really add anything), or specify a time frame. SSSB (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of which hundreds of them were killed," This sentence doesn't flow very well. It also lacks precision. Could possibly be reworded to "700 of whom were killed". SSSB (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no need to cite the BBC source (source 10) twice in the final paragraph of the background section. Citing them once at the end of the final paragraph is fine. SSSB (talk) 07:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommened restructructing the background section to improve flow. I would change up the first three paragraphs so that it is in chronological order: "Prior to Israel's establishment in 1948, Morocco had a large Jewish population of about 250,000 to 350,000 Jews (10% of the population) and hundreds of thousands of Israeli Jews have lineage that traces to Morocco. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Moroccan soldiers, of which hundreds of them were killed, formed part of the Arab expeditionary forces supplying Egypt and Syria. The two countries establishing low-level, informal diplomatic relations during the 1990s following Israel's interim peace accords with the Palestinians, which were suspended after the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada(→) in 2000. The two countries have maintained informal ties since then, with an estimated 50,000 Israelis traveling to Morocco each year although by 2020 the Jewish population in Morocco had decreased to approximately 2,000." flows better, I think. It feels less like a collection of disconnected statements. Similarily, the last two paragraphs of this section could probabaly benefit by becoming one parapgraph, just so that it feels more connected as a section, rather than a list of statements. SSSB (talk) 07:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The others section could benefit with a few more countries. Possibly from some other major western powers, or other muslim majority countries. Also possibly from religous leaders. SSSB (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is very quote heavy. There are lots of quotes here which I don't think need to be quotes. SSSB (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

[edit]

Mostly good. A few details that need adressing before promotion, but nothing major. Placing on hold. SSSB (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Lechkar, reminder ping. -- asilvering (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please check with the changes made in the most recent revision. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Lechkar. You missed one of my points; the prose needs to explain why Coleamns's and Inhofoe's opinions are relevant within the prose. Also, can you please explain why the states (or parties, now I think of it) of US senator's are relevant. Because if they are not relevant, they shouldn't be mentioned. SSSB (talk) 20:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Morocco_normalization_agreement&oldid=1255120811"