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:
You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
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.
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 within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
