![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Articles about specific reports should use the full title of those reports. Thus I propose this article be renamed:
I do not use a WP account, thus could someone else do this move? -- 70.48.243.22 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can figure out how to do it. -- NathanDW 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like this is being used as WP:SOAPBOX. One-sided partisan sources, one-sided analysis. ← Humus sapiens ну ? 01:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Komaknacon 03:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a sentence to the lead about the report explaining "new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on Western values." Although others may not intepret it this way, this is directly from a quotation in the report which says: "While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform." Criticism should be added to the lead as well, but the sentence I added (and was reverted) is completely npov. Joshdboz 15:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This article has been protected from edits for one week because of the constant reversions I have been seeing on this page tonight.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 06:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This article looked as if someone has removed half of it without paying much attention to what they were editing. I have reverted back to the most inclusive past revision. We can start editing it from there.
Please when editing do not remove categories and see also links wholesale, that is irresponsible. -- John Bahrain ( talk) 15:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
IN the meantime, there were numerous errors of simple fact in the article itself--for example, attributing material to the "introduction" that did not appear there. So I will start with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmikeh49 ( talk • contribs) 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 01:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This section is a mess, in my opinion. It contains lots of quotes (some partisan, some prescient, some both). I think it needs to be compressed. Opinions? Bazuz ( talk) 11:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a tough nut, this article is. After thinking more about it, and actually starting to edit, I think the jumble of quotes might be a good format after all. What is missing is the reception of the report by Netanyahu himself - I'm pretty sure he never acted on it, and if someone could find a source reporting his evaluation to the report, it would be important to include. So, for nwo, I'll just remove two useless quotes (the Bamford one and the Daniel Levy - they add absolutely nothing). Bazuz ( talk) 09:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Douglas Faith said: "I was not a co-author of the "Clean Break" paper. I neither wrote it nor signed it." ( http://www.dougfeith.com/cleanbreak.html)
The newly-added statement in intro that "the polices set forth in the paper were rejected by Netanyahu" is unverifiable given the references provided. On the other hand, many sources already referenced in the article indicate that Netanyahu has embraced said policies, if only during his next administration (2009-present). I've added the appropriate tags in the article. Please advise. Alfy32 ( talk) 18:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
At the end of the "Influence" section, a quote of "TAKI" from The American Conservative is added. The quote is problematic for two reasons:
It seems like better sources for the potential influence of this paper can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.197.178.169 ( talk) 13:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Enforce WP:SS, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:COPYVIO. Preferably by sending the entire thing to Wikisource. Anarchangel ( talk) 21:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Articles about specific reports should use the full title of those reports. Thus I propose this article be renamed:
I do not use a WP account, thus could someone else do this move? -- 70.48.243.22 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll see if I can figure out how to do it. -- NathanDW 02:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like this is being used as WP:SOAPBOX. One-sided partisan sources, one-sided analysis. ← Humus sapiens ну ? 01:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Komaknacon 03:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a sentence to the lead about the report explaining "new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on Western values." Although others may not intepret it this way, this is directly from a quotation in the report which says: "While there are those who will counsel continuity, Israel has the opportunity to make a clean break; it can forge a peace process and strategy based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism, the starting point of which must be economic reform." Criticism should be added to the lead as well, but the sentence I added (and was reverted) is completely npov. Joshdboz 15:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
This article has been protected from edits for one week because of the constant reversions I have been seeing on this page tonight.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 06:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This article looked as if someone has removed half of it without paying much attention to what they were editing. I have reverted back to the most inclusive past revision. We can start editing it from there.
Please when editing do not remove categories and see also links wholesale, that is irresponsible. -- John Bahrain ( talk) 15:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
IN the meantime, there were numerous errors of simple fact in the article itself--for example, attributing material to the "introduction" that did not appear there. So I will start with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmikeh49 ( talk • contribs) 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 01:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
This section is a mess, in my opinion. It contains lots of quotes (some partisan, some prescient, some both). I think it needs to be compressed. Opinions? Bazuz ( talk) 11:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
It's a tough nut, this article is. After thinking more about it, and actually starting to edit, I think the jumble of quotes might be a good format after all. What is missing is the reception of the report by Netanyahu himself - I'm pretty sure he never acted on it, and if someone could find a source reporting his evaluation to the report, it would be important to include. So, for nwo, I'll just remove two useless quotes (the Bamford one and the Daniel Levy - they add absolutely nothing). Bazuz ( talk) 09:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Douglas Faith said: "I was not a co-author of the "Clean Break" paper. I neither wrote it nor signed it." ( http://www.dougfeith.com/cleanbreak.html)
The newly-added statement in intro that "the polices set forth in the paper were rejected by Netanyahu" is unverifiable given the references provided. On the other hand, many sources already referenced in the article indicate that Netanyahu has embraced said policies, if only during his next administration (2009-present). I've added the appropriate tags in the article. Please advise. Alfy32 ( talk) 18:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
At the end of the "Influence" section, a quote of "TAKI" from The American Conservative is added. The quote is problematic for two reasons:
It seems like better sources for the potential influence of this paper can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.197.178.169 ( talk) 13:02, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Enforce WP:SS, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:COPYVIO. Preferably by sending the entire thing to Wikisource. Anarchangel ( talk) 21:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)