Talk:2000 Camp David Summit

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

De-emphasized disproportionately[edit]

The fact that Arafat did not conduct any detailed negotiations with respect to the Israeli proposal, and did not make any specific counteroffer to it -- instead merely repeating general slogans, such as the right of all Palestinians to return, the claim that there never was any Jewish Temple at Jerusalem etc. -- is only covered in one short sentence in the article, despite the fact that it was a very significant part of why the summit failed. It certainly played a major role in annoying Bill Clinton, and ensuring that Clinton blamed Arafat for the summit's failure. AnonMoos (talk) 05:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn’t the major reason though. That’s just an opinion. 41.34.43.133 (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Ben Ami quote[edit]

The quote from Shlomo Ben Ami's debate in Democracy Now! (2006) is misleading. The full quote says:

Yes, yes. Okay, the last third part of the book, as Dr. Finkelstein says, there is the diplomat, and this same diplomat still behaves in a way as a historian when he says in this book that Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well. This is something I put in the book. But Taba is the problem.

But the quote in the article omits the beginning, starting with:

Camp David was not the missed opportunity (etc.)

Making it seem like it is Ben Ami's opinion, although it isn't (according to the debate and the book). The opinion is apparently attributed to some other diplomat mentioned in the book. Shilton (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I could be mistaken but he seems to be talking about himself. Even in his book he refers to himself in third person. VR talk 19:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gush Shalom[edit]

Why is the Gush Shalom material being removed? The edit summary says[1] the material is unsourced. But it is sourced. Do you think the source is unreliable? Or it doesn't support the material in question? VR talk 02:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with running the video[edit]

The video up top doesn't seem to work. I may be wrong, but could it be that, at the very end of the description of its file, "Video Recording of Photo Opportunity at Camp David - NARA - 6037428.ogv", that extension should instead read ".gov"? 76.236.220.28 (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table[edit]

Onceinawhile I see you thanked me for this edit. Appreciate it, as it took a while to do that research and then present it in a way that would be easy to understand. Can you give me more feedback on this? I'm thinking of tabulating all the major recent list of proposals for two-state solution (Israeli, Palestinian, American etc) and putting them either at two-state solution or List of proposals for a two-state solution. VR talk 16:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Vice regent: I am a big fan of tabulating information to make it easy to understand for our readers. A good table is hard for any of us to achieve, requiring choosing and curating only the really important information, and allowing different parts of the information to be easily compared. I find it much harder than writing unconstrained paragraphs, but more valuable. Some tables I have built to try to make complex topics easier for our readers: Arab Christians#Denominations, International Campaign to Save the Monuments of Nubia#Overview, Cartography of Palestine#Notable maps of Palestine, Mixed cities#Demographics, Palestinian refugee camps#List of camps, List of towns and villages depopulated during the 1947–1949 Palestine war#Table, Sursock Purchases#1921–1925, and depopulation, Balfour Declaration#Drafting, Canaanite and Aramaic inscriptions#List of notable inscriptions, and McMahon–Hussein Correspondence#British position. The last one (bolded) is probably the most similar in concept to what you have prepared here, although I went for direct quotations.
I think you have done a great job here on a difficult subject. If you have the time to solidify it further I would propose:
  • Organizing the rows into participants and non-participants, and - since the participants who provided a public description of the terms will be finite and provable - finding a source or sources which confirm that you have identified and included ALL of the relevant participants.
  • For both the participants and non-participants, identify clearly where and by who each set of information was first published. Some will be second-hand, so this should be clear.
  • Each box should be footnoted. Personally I would have detailed quotations, where relevant, in the footnotes
  • Remove every single unnecessary word throughout the table. A number of the words are duplicated across the body of the table, so perhaps could be moved into the headers. The less words, the easier to compare.
Happy to help, as you wish.
Onceinawhile (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2000_Camp_David_Summit&oldid=1218639120"