Talk:Deal of the Century (draft plan)

Copy edit

@GorgeCustersSabre: Hi, Can I ask you to do copy edit of the article? Thanks a lot. Saff V. (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Basic article failings

Problem 1

The article fails to state what the subject actually is. I don't know what it is so I don't want to draft something myself.

Problem 2

The current lead (probably unintentionally) implies that action by the US government can unilaterally effect a resolution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. That's just plain incorrect. How may times has the US Government tried and failed? Even with a perfect plan there is no reason to be confident that it could bridge the gap between the incompatible aspirations of both sides. (Readers can decide for themselves how confident they are that the current USA administration can come up with a perfect plan. That isn't really the problem though.)

Problem 3

The article is self-contradictory. It says that the plan (or whatever it is) is "being drafted" but it also says that it has already been sent out and that various people have already commented on it as if it were fully drafted.

Proposed solution to problems 1 and 2

Change:

"The Deal of the Century is currently being drafted by the US administration to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict."

To something of the form:

"The Deal of the Century is an insert description here intended to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. It is currently being drafted by the US administration"

The description needs to be something more specific than a vague description like "deal", "plan" or "proposal" (although those words are OK if used as part of a more complete description). I also think the word "intended" needs to be in there, although "proposed" might be a valid alternative. Without it, it implies that it is within the power of the USA to effect a resolution unilaterally.

Problem 3 can be solved by rewriting the text to remove the apparent self-contradiction. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@DanielRigal: Thank you for your attention and attention. I really appreciate you for nominating to issues and suggest the solution for them. As you said, the third one would be done by copy edit, but about the first two problems: I rewrote the lead. Please say your opinion. Also, I have searched. In result, You are right, it is a draft but anywhere the word of the draft has not been used. The proposal is more common.Saff V. (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Survive AFD

@DanielRigal:, As you mentioned "if it can be firmed up to make it clear exactly what the thing actually is then that would make it a keep" in the AFD of article, can you explain what "make it clear exactly what the thing actually is"?Saff V. (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Can I ask you to make clear some speculations that you believe, I have to remove them from the article? Saff V. (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll point out some problematic bits, For instance -

1. ]In fact, According to the Balfour Declaration, a national homeland for Jewish people was determined in Palestine In 1917. Also, Trump has tried to realize the great dream of Israel, from the Nile to the Euphrates by applying the deal of the century.[7] - sourced to MEE (not a good source - definitely not for a topic well covered such as this).
2. The term "Deal of the Century" is similar with the name of a 1983 American comedy film Deal of the Century talking about a group of arms dealers that compete to sell weapons to a South American dictator.[4] - from an op-ed.
3. Current United States President Donald Trump sent the deal of the century to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with interposing of Saudi officials. He pushed back the deal and said any Palestinian people not to put it in force.[9] - Again MEE. Also while Saudis' forcing this on the PA was in the press a few months ago (or last year?) - the latest bout of press is them backing off from forcing this down on the PA - so you'd have to date this.
4. The detail of deal has not published officially but equipped with the 35-page document from the Saudis. As Palestinian official reported, the context of the deal is mentioned to establish new Jerusalem for Palestinians that the security of borders is prepared by Israel forces. In other words, deal considered the Palestine state with the provisional borders on half of West Bank and the Gaza Strip, without Jerusalem.[9] - again sourced to MEE. And this is what MEE is reporting of what the PA said/leaked in March 2018. The "deal" itself is fluid in details - so you need to state this with a date.
5. Based on the poll done by Haaretz newspaper, in the result, 7 percent of the participants believe that the deal is in favor of Israel, and 31 percent believe that the profits of Palestinians are provided.[3] - MEMO is not a reasonable source (you could use Haaretz directly). You are also mangling the numbers. I'll also note that this a poll of the public who is reading 2nd hand rumors in the papers on what the deal might contain - I probably would cut it out all together.
6. Also Palestinians do not agree with the deal because Jerusalem and the refugees will be excepted from the condition of the deal, and because the absolute security control in the deal will be given to Israel. [3] - MEMO - bad source. Beyond that, MEMO itself is saying The Palestinians have already rejected the deal saying that it excludes Jerusalem and the refugees issue from the solution and allows Israel to control large areas in the West Bank and gives it absolute security control - so not a stmt of fact, but rather reporting what the Palestinians have said of this thing (who specifics we do not yet know - as all the information we've got is 2nd hand reactions!).
7. Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas stated the aim of the deal is Disarming Hamas. Also, he said the selection of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is the solution presented in the Deal of the Century.[7] - op-ed from MEMO - not an appropriate source. The op-ed doesn't say this - it refers to disarming Hamas in the context of Palestinian reconciliation - not "the deal". I also do not see where Abu Mazan says this about the capital in relation to the deal (it seems the column is addressing Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital - which is separate from teh deal).
8. I would also question Ali Khamenei's relevance - he might be fit for inclusion, but there's a whole bunch of other figures you would think would be as relevant or more relevant.

The article needs a lot of work - use of mainstream sources, and describing an actual timeline - when Trump officials visited so and so. When Trump did whatever (e.g. the embassy move to Jerusalem would be relevant, I think). When describing various reactions (mainly Palestinian - most of the leaks/reactions, in this case, are from the PA) - it is important to date them - it is quite likely that the "deal" a year ago isn't the same as the "deal" now.Icewhiz (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz:, I added some reliable source to remove some problems that you had mentioned. Also, some materials that I wrote, was challenging so I prefer to remove them. In result, I can't find out your mean in a problem in number 2 and for number 7 this source confirm that it is right and the deal of century is not separated from a selection of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.(Mr Abbas spoke for more than two hours and said Mr Trump’s promise to deliver “the deal of the century” in the form of an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal had turned into “the slap of century” after the US recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. ) for the last part, he is one people around the world who criticise to deal. we can add another opinion from political figures.Saff V. (talk) 10:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I also added some materials about the timeline that you mentioned above at context part.Saff V. (talk) 11:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

You have improved the situation. I would however avoid use of opeds, and I would suggest removing or greatly reducing use of MEMO and MEE as sources.Icewhiz (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Some of MEE source was removed but why it is not reliable. in most of the case, the news of MEE has a name of the writer and other identify character.Saff V. (talk) 05:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)