![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the ArabāIsraeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
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.
|
This section should be moved to after the partial freeze section. (1) It breaks up the flow between the main section on the Talks and the partial Freeze. The Talks ended because the Israel's decision not to extend the freeze, so the flow is important there. (2) The Palestinian violence campaign is also less important for the reason that its impact on the Talks so far have been minimal while the impact of the cessation of the partial freeze has been quite important.
Also for this second reason, it should be shortened to no more than one paragraph at most. It just seems out of place here--basically an article describing diplomatic events. Any longer and it's an undue weight issue and an OR issue.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 20:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Lieberman's speech at the UN setting forth his view of a two state solution should be added. It's important because he is the FM making a major speech at the UN proposing a seemingly divergent view from Netanyahu's two state approach and the PM doesn't reject it. Commentators have observed that this may mean that the Israel govt's position may include more than one approach to the two state solution. Also, commentators have stated that this may mean that the right wing flank of Netanyahu's govt may not support a conventional two state should Netanyahu try to go with the latter.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 22:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
for conversations that endured for less than a month? -- Againme ( talk) 16:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, I see that you have on a number occasions have reverted my edits, I think that we have stop reverting and discuss it here. The lead section is non-neutral and biased, it is 99% inclided towards allegation that Israel pursues the peace negotiation, but Palestinians reject every and each "peace proposals" just because they refuse without any reason. Israel's refuse to extend freeze, has been viewed as impediment to peace even by Israel's closest ally - US, also EU voiced their critisism over the freeze issue. The lead section has to be re-written in neutral tone.-- Jim Fitzgerald post 16:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
This article is obviously written by a pro-israeli, second part of this article focus on a small group that want to derail the peace talks for example, why is that so significant to start an article with? NPz1 ( talk) 12:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Well you just proved my point right away, anyone else what to contribute with some more neutral standpoints? NPz1 ( talk) 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
While I know it may be a stretch to claim the talks still continue, they have never officially ended yet, so shouldn't the title read "...in 2010-2011"? If so, please change it to read as such. Gaandolf ( talk) 21:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems like the user Gaandolf have vandalized the article by for example remvoing the "international reactions" part. This part was neutral and thorough and should be replaced. ā Preceding unsigned comment added by NPz1 ( talk ā¢ contribs) 15:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
These talks were in 2010 so I think the title should change back to that. The title would also be better if it was like 2013 IsraeliāPalestinian peace talks. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 23:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
We seem to have a "new" editor who keeps editing to make it seem as if Israel has sovereignty over Jerusalem, something widely known to be false. The source does use the word sovereignty but this propaganda as is to be expected coming from such groups and should just be ignored or in the very least, requires quotation marks. Sepsis II ( talk) 15:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
First of all, Israeli sovereignties in Jerusalem (at least west Jerusalem ) is far from a fringe view. More importantly, that sentence is a newspaper reporting on a survey question that uses that word - you can't change that word just because you disagree with it āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny Xmas ( talk ā¢ contribs) 17:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, the survey question uses that word and a newspaper reported on the survey question. You cannot chane the words used in the survey because you don't like them āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny Xmas ( talk ā¢ contribs) 18:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2010ā11 IsraeliāPalestinian peace talks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.ā InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2010ā11 IsraeliāPalestinian peace talks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/02/news_brief_us_launches_direct_negotiationsWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.ā InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change āare taking placeā to ātook place throughout 2010ā in the introductory sentence to avoid confusion. 108.176.109.107 ( talk) 22:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Done Amirah talk 16:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section about the reactions of the palestinian public I think a "the" is missing in the end of the first part of the section.
"highly supported, most Palestinians supported idea of peace talks over violence."
Should there be a "the" before idea? Or perhaps make "idea" be "ideas" just so it reads better. NascentSpace ( talk) 00:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the ArabāIsraeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
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.
|
This section should be moved to after the partial freeze section. (1) It breaks up the flow between the main section on the Talks and the partial Freeze. The Talks ended because the Israel's decision not to extend the freeze, so the flow is important there. (2) The Palestinian violence campaign is also less important for the reason that its impact on the Talks so far have been minimal while the impact of the cessation of the partial freeze has been quite important.
Also for this second reason, it should be shortened to no more than one paragraph at most. It just seems out of place here--basically an article describing diplomatic events. Any longer and it's an undue weight issue and an OR issue.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 20:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Lieberman's speech at the UN setting forth his view of a two state solution should be added. It's important because he is the FM making a major speech at the UN proposing a seemingly divergent view from Netanyahu's two state approach and the PM doesn't reject it. Commentators have observed that this may mean that the Israel govt's position may include more than one approach to the two state solution. Also, commentators have stated that this may mean that the right wing flank of Netanyahu's govt may not support a conventional two state should Netanyahu try to go with the latter.-- NYCJosh ( talk) 22:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
for conversations that endured for less than a month? -- Againme ( talk) 16:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Brewcrewer, I see that you have on a number occasions have reverted my edits, I think that we have stop reverting and discuss it here. The lead section is non-neutral and biased, it is 99% inclided towards allegation that Israel pursues the peace negotiation, but Palestinians reject every and each "peace proposals" just because they refuse without any reason. Israel's refuse to extend freeze, has been viewed as impediment to peace even by Israel's closest ally - US, also EU voiced their critisism over the freeze issue. The lead section has to be re-written in neutral tone.-- Jim Fitzgerald post 16:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
This article is obviously written by a pro-israeli, second part of this article focus on a small group that want to derail the peace talks for example, why is that so significant to start an article with? NPz1 ( talk) 12:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Well you just proved my point right away, anyone else what to contribute with some more neutral standpoints? NPz1 ( talk) 15:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
While I know it may be a stretch to claim the talks still continue, they have never officially ended yet, so shouldn't the title read "...in 2010-2011"? If so, please change it to read as such. Gaandolf ( talk) 21:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems like the user Gaandolf have vandalized the article by for example remvoing the "international reactions" part. This part was neutral and thorough and should be replaced. ā Preceding unsigned comment added by NPz1 ( talk ā¢ contribs) 15:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
These talks were in 2010 so I think the title should change back to that. The title would also be better if it was like 2013 IsraeliāPalestinian peace talks. -- IRISZOOM ( talk) 23:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
We seem to have a "new" editor who keeps editing to make it seem as if Israel has sovereignty over Jerusalem, something widely known to be false. The source does use the word sovereignty but this propaganda as is to be expected coming from such groups and should just be ignored or in the very least, requires quotation marks. Sepsis II ( talk) 15:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
First of all, Israeli sovereignties in Jerusalem (at least west Jerusalem ) is far from a fringe view. More importantly, that sentence is a newspaper reporting on a survey question that uses that word - you can't change that word just because you disagree with it āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny Xmas ( talk ā¢ contribs) 17:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, the survey question uses that word and a newspaper reported on the survey question. You cannot chane the words used in the survey because you don't like them āĀ Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunny Xmas ( talk ā¢ contribs) 18:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2010ā11 IsraeliāPalestinian peace talks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.ā InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2010ā11 IsraeliāPalestinian peace talks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/02/news_brief_us_launches_direct_negotiationsWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.ā InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change āare taking placeā to ātook place throughout 2010ā in the introductory sentence to avoid confusion. 108.176.109.107 ( talk) 22:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Done Amirah talk 16:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section about the reactions of the palestinian public I think a "the" is missing in the end of the first part of the section.
"highly supported, most Palestinians supported idea of peace talks over violence."
Should there be a "the" before idea? Or perhaps make "idea" be "ideas" just so it reads better. NascentSpace ( talk) 00:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)