Talk:Background to the Israel–Hamas war
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Background to the Israel–Hamas war. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Background to the Israel–Hamas war at the Reference desk. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Israel–Hamas war was copied or moved into Background to the Israel-Hamas war on 8 July 2024. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Article creation
editArticle created per agreement on [1]. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
"the question of Palestine no longer matters in the Middle East"
editWhat is the issue raised here? I am not kidding that this is the quote from the source, if that is the question being asked. CMD (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Couple things, I think. First that statement is from "Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle East politics" so shouldn't be stated as if it were a generally agreed fact. Plus QoP is very old fashioned nowadays although the UN still uses the expression, I think it needs to be clear in what context that statement was being made, that the US administration thought they could bully through a Saudi normalization because nobody cared about the Palestinians, a notion that they have subsequently been disabused of (so it's kinda out of date too). Selfstudier (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- That seems to be a goal improved by expanding the quote? CMD (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe use the original NYT source? Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- It has the same quote. I understand you are raising wider points about the sentence in question, but I am hoping to receive an answer on the narrow question about why extending the existing quote in the article to make the sentence more accurate to the source was reverted. CMD (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I gave you reasons for that already. The NYT has a longer and better quote because it adds context and of course, it should anyway be attributed inline. Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Neither of those relates to the specific edit in question. Adding a longer quote is what I had already done. That does not preclude someone making it longer. Attributing it inline can occur with a quote of any length. CMD (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, let me be clearer, you have no consensus to add it, because I also disagree with it. Also this discussion strikes me as a bit of a waste of time. Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't add it, the quote was already in the article. CMD (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I object to the content (still). Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- That seems so, but that's a different question. If you want to expand the quote further or remove it, I have no objection. My only objection is to the current very partial presentation of the quote, something you seem to agree with. CMD (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do, still thinking what to do, tho. Selfstudier (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- That seems so, but that's a different question. If you want to expand the quote further or remove it, I have no objection. My only objection is to the current very partial presentation of the quote, something you seem to agree with. CMD (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I object to the content (still). Selfstudier (talk) 13:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't add it, the quote was already in the article. CMD (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- OK, let me be clearer, you have no consensus to add it, because I also disagree with it. Also this discussion strikes me as a bit of a waste of time. Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Neither of those relates to the specific edit in question. Adding a longer quote is what I had already done. That does not preclude someone making it longer. Attributing it inline can occur with a quote of any length. CMD (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I gave you reasons for that already. The NYT has a longer and better quote because it adds context and of course, it should anyway be attributed inline. Selfstudier (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- It has the same quote. I understand you are raising wider points about the sentence in question, but I am hoping to receive an answer on the narrow question about why extending the existing quote in the article to make the sentence more accurate to the source was reverted. CMD (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe use the original NYT source? Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- That seems to be a goal improved by expanding the quote? CMD (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)