Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Article workshop
|This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.|
This can be a workshop for documenting, suggesting or discussing any proposed new methods for handling articles, and for addrssing any issues or disputes by propsing new approaches or methods of resolution.
Format of this page
The format of this page can take various forms. one format which we might want to consider is to take some structure similar to ArbCom, in which each editor proposes their own set of ideas or perceptions for various methods.
Idea; scope and nature of NPOV
(Note: Just to get the ball rolling, I am copying here some ideas which i originally posted at the ArbCom case. As this goes forward, we can periodically post new ideas here, either in response to specific issues which are occurring, or else simply as general ideas for making things better and for making articles more constructive.) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia must be NPOV; however, there is no such thing as pure objectivity.
- 1)All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors.
- However, Wikipedia articles also need to avoid Systemic bias. They must also sometimes recognize that there is no such thing as objectivity; therefore, it is sometimes worthwhile to be willing to learn how to write for the enemy, in order to allow an opposing factual claim into the article even if one may disagree completely with that claim. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- One of the problems with articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is that we have here two diametrically-opposed viewpoints, each with frequently their own versions of historical fact, and legality. Under these conditions, it is almost impossible to write something which is absolutely neutral in the most traditional sense, since there is no genuinely neutral account. One of the best ways to achieve true consensus here is to recognize that there are two communities here, and two valid viewpoints, each with its own heartfelt concerns and genuine sensitivities.
- Proponents of Palestinian views may frequently need to cite sources which in a Western political context might be seen as overly leftist, or revisionist. Similarly, proponents of Israeli views may sometimes need to cite sources which might be seen as somewhat dogmatic within a Western context. Neither side's sources should be always accepted unconditionally.
- However, one of the ways to find true consensus and a positive resolution is to accept that the views of each community deserve some degree of coverage, and not to wrangle endlessly because one source or another appears to clearly have a certain opinionated political approach or an opinionated approach to history. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)