Talk:2000 Camp David Summit/Archives/2015/April

'Responsibility' Section
As it stands, this section fails to contrast the views on responsibility, falling into the frequent Wiki trap of listing separate statements of a largely subjective nature, of the who-said-what-about-whom type. It therefore becomes largely (and simply) accusative in nature. This style of separation does not present the reader with a key Wiki concept, namely the ability to balance contrasting POVs. It also largely fails to offer subsequent syntheses by analysts who, when the facts and consequences are at hand, step back and review the process.

In order to promote this key Wiki POV-reducing tool, I therefore suggest that the section be reorganized to contrast the facts and opinions (of key players) on the various individual reasons for the summit's failure, and also to present subsequent 'step-back' views of the overall failure by recognised Israel/Palestine experts. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see how you intent to do it. It seems to me that the reasons for failure attributed to each side are different, so how can they be contrasted directly ? Currently the section appears ok to me. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with WarKosign. We currently have detailed sections for both positions: those that place responsibility with the Palestinians, and those that hold the Israelis responsible. I don't see an issue with the article as it stands, today. All Rows4 (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * - so neither of you see merit in placing contrasting POVs on the various themes next to each other, so that they can be compared? Do you thereby disagree that such side-by-side structure is a key Wiki tool to provide balance for readers of disputed events such as this summit? My complaint refers exclusively to the 'Responsibility for Failure' section. For instance, the first sentence is "Most of the Israeli and American criticism for the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit was leveled at Arafat." For its acceptability this entry needs to hide behind the word "most". The balancing counter view by Malley has to wait until 17 lines later. I find this to let less-than-scholarly, and not to favor Wiki-style balancing. Barak's opinion on Arafat is presented, but it is not readily obvious that 20-30 lines later, no Arafat opinion (or any Palestinian opinion for that matter) of Barak has yet been added. A glaring weakness is that there is no POV balance down below to the Dershowitz statement. Are you sure you disagree with a side-by-side approach for the "Responsibility" section? I am certainly not convince on this evidence. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * As a point of note, All Rows4, you previously [ in Fatah-Hamas conflict ] objected to an edit of mine because, according to you, the proposed land-swap was not 9:1 in favor of Israel. I see you didn't object to a confirming statement of 9:1 imbalance in this article. Erictheenquirer (talk) 08:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you intent to put side-by-side ? For example, what would you contrast with the first sentence blaming Arafat ? The criticism addressed at each side does not always have a direct counterpart. If you are concerned that a user who reads the "Responsibility for failure" section would read the "Accusations of Palestinian responsibility" section but then fail to notice equally large "Accusations of Israeli and American responsibility" section, you can either swap them, or add a general sentence above both saying that each side was blamed for failure of the talks, perhaps there are sources on criticism addressed equally at both sides. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea at all, WarKosign. I will consider your suggestion seriously. But I do feel that the over-reliance on US/Israeli views (pro or anti) is rather against the Wiki concept, and will deserve treatment irrespective. This is where sites like the JPS, electronicintifada, +972, Palestine News Network and others come into their own. Naturally, they are ususally accused of not being WP:RS for obvious reasons. Erictheenquirer (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 'obvious' reason being that they are not reliable sources, but advocacy blogs. If you want to provide views that are not reliant on US/Israeli views- add such from reliable, non-Israeli, non-US sources. All Rows4 (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Your claim as to the web sources that I cited being advocacy blogs is rejected.
 * It is unsupported; i.e. it is merely your opinion; typically you provided zero proof.
 * More importantly your POV is in conflict with much more scholarly discussions on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.
 * I find it interesting that you and Warkosign make objections without even having seen a draft proposal. Allow me to ask - are your wishes to protect and preserve the official Israeli line, and hence to avoid POV-balancing at all costs (a core Wiki concept), quite so zealous? Never mind. We will be testing the achievement of POV-balancing on Gaza beach explosion (2006), and I can assure you that such a core concept will not be allowed to be reduced to a vote. Erictheenquirer (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Honestly, this is getting ridiculous. There is no question whatsoever that 972 mag and/or Electronic Intifada are advocacy sites, using a blog format. As just one example, the About page for 972 mag says right in the first sentence " +972 is a blog-based web magazine" , and later "we oppose the occupation". Take it to the  reliable  sources board if you doubt it, they have already been discussed several times, with the above conclusion, Find reliable sources. All Rows4 (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)