Talk:Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement

Requested move 11 September 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Moved per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ---  C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Bahrain–Israel peace agreement → Bahain-Israel normalization agreement – There isn't really many RS calling it a peace agreement (not including Trump himself), not to mention it isn't actually a peace agreement. In contrast, most RS are referring to it as the normalization of relations, not to mention that is the actual accurate title. See 1 "landmark deal to fully normalise their relations", 2 "announces deal between Bahrain, Israel to normalize relations", 3 "Bahrain has joined the United Arab Emirates in striking an agreement to normalize relations with Israel", 4 "Bahrain Will Normalize Relations With Israel", and 55 "Bahrain has become the latest Arab nation to agree to normalize ties with Israel" among what I am sure are many others. Changed to Bahain-Israel normalization agreement as per WP:CONCISE Zoozaz1 (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: I agree with you that it is not a peace agreement or treaty because the two countries have not fought in the past.--Sakiv (talk) 18:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: for the same reasons applicable to the UAE; it cannot be a peace agreement if there was never a state of conflict, and in fact Israel and Bahrain have had an undisclosed friendly relationship since at least Israeli prime minister Shimon Peres's visit in the 1990s. It is factually a normalization agreement, no matter what spin is put on it. --Telecart (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: As others have said, it can't be a "peace agreement" if there was no prior state of conflict. Bahrain and many other Gulf states (including Saudi Arabia) already have a close back door relationship with Israel.--HadesTheEldest (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: There was no state of war, declared or otherwise, to end, and so this cannot be a peace agreement. It's simply going from a state of no relation, to normal relations. Think of a new country, that starts to form relations with other nations - it might be "recognized", it might sign agreements regulating trade and diplomatic relations. But those would certainly not be peace agreements. okedem (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Since there was no war, then this makes sense. I'm not that knowledgable in Wiki policies but does this count as WP:SNOW? Sixula (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Not a peace agreement and RS are mostly not calling it that. This is not much different to the UAE case, where although there might not be entire agreement on what precisely to call it, there is little support for calling it a peace agreement. Nor is there is an "alternative" name to muddy up the waters in this case so yea, I think this is likely SNOW. It's just an agreement to establish diplomatic relations and would not even be a major news item were it not for the Israel Palestine situation.Selfstudier (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but moved to Bahrain–Israel normalization agreement because original move request were likely a typo and violates en-dash. My argument is likely same as others. 180.249.244.242 (talk) 14:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: As I said on the Talk:Israel–United Arab Emirates peace agreement, THIS IS NOT A PEACE AGREEMENT. That is just the way the media portrays it. What does diplomatic relations have to do with peace? Thepharoah17 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: It is not a peace agreement or treaty because the two countries were not in a state of war, either formally or de facto. Trying to reconnect (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2020: Relevant Articles, Categories and Templates
In the "See also" section there should be a link to the articles:
 * Abraham Accords
 * Israel–Sudan normalization agreement

The following relevant categories of the article should include:
 * 2020 in the United States

The following template should be at the bottom of the article: 72.229.44.69 (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: Abraham Accords is already wikilinked in the body of the article, so it is unnecessary to add it to the see also section. September 2020 events in the United States is already a subcategory of 2020 in the United States. Dylsss(talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 01:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2020
Include Israel–Morocco normalization agreement in the "See Also" section. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, those most of these links are already in the template, I would propose just to remove the section.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2023
Change Ireland to "No public position" until a source is given. The map shows Ireland with yellow (Neutral/Ambiguous) despite providing no source. Frojas798 (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ – it could take up to several hours for the article to notice that the image has been updated. Tollens (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like the image was correctly modified if I click on it and zoom but the article itself at first glance still has Ireland in yellow. I wonder if it's a bug or something else has to be changed. Frojas798 (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)