Talk:peace talks

Deletion discussion

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

sudden death

peace talks

SoP? --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I would keep it; it's one of those terms which never seems to be used in the singular form. But I think the term can be used outside inter-country discussions, between trade union and company for example. Donnanz (talk) 10:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete, it's because talks is plural only in this sense. What else could peace talks possibly mean but talks that have the objective of peace? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Listed by Oxford: [1]. Donnanz (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep using the lemming heuristic: present in oxforddictionaries.com[2] and Collins[3]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

  Keep then, I support the Lemming principle .--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 21:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

• I would keep this, but add other supranational groups to the definition. It is also fairly common to find references to organized criminal gangs, ranging from street gangs to mafia families, having "peace talks". bd2412 T 15:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
• Let's look at some things that could be described as "peace talks" to test the boundaries of the definition:

1. A lecture series on the subject of peace
2. A negotiation between two former enemies to decide on managing and paying for things resulting from their peace treaty that weren't envisioned at the time it was signed (no return to conflict is likely if unsuccessful, however).
3. Discussions by allies in an armed conflict to come to agreement about how to respond to proposals by their common enemy when negotiations begin between the two sides.
4. Negotiations between a party in an armed conflict and a neutral third party in order to get them to help in resolving the conflict.
5. Negotiations between the two sides in an armed conflict for the purpose of ending the conflict.

The first one is clearly SOP and unrelated to the sense at hand, the last one is my version of the sense at hand (though "violent" could be substituted for "armed" to make it more general), and the others are variations in one or more aspects. Determining which ones are peace talks in the sense at hand, and how an average user of the dictionary would know that, should help tighten up the definition and/or make it easier to see if this is truly SOP. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Did you forget about peace talks in unarmed conflicts? Donnanz (talk) 13:03, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keep, but generalise the definition per comments above. (Disclaimer: I'm the one who created the entry originally.) ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

• RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)