1. Difficult Issues for Pro/Con
Breaking down the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in a pro/con format is more difficult than other issues, such as the issue of medical marijuana, which most people are either for or against.
Because nationalism, religion and history all come into play in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, most people, sometimes even the actors in the conflict, are unable to say whether they support Israel or Palestine definitively, or in what areas. Some may support Israel on one issue, but the Palestinians on another.
In an attempt to maintain the pro/con format for simplicity’s sake, we may portray some issues in more in black and white than some may think proper.
2. Intended Users
The information presented on this site is intended for the media, researchers, students, legislators, their staff and the public.
You will find the completion percentage of the site at the right side of the top and bottom tool bars. When the site is less than 50% complete, the completion percentage will additionally be noted in the center of the site's home page.
3. Questions/Responses
Questions are developed by contact with people involved in the Israeli/Palestinian issue and are intended to thoroughly cover the main question:"What are the solutions to the Israeli - Palestinian conflict?" and related issues.
We continually encourage readers to send us additional questions and responses that are more specific, more direct and/or have more credible sources than what is currently posted on the pro or con sides. We will normally post up to ten of the best comments per question (a minimum of 5 pro and 5 con).
4. Credibility Ranking
The Credibility Ranking Chart was designed as a simple way to gauge the theoretical credibility of the responses received, although we note that sometimes, for example, a 1-star source (
) may be better informed or more credible than a 5-star () source, and that a 5-star government report or peer-reviewed study can be inaccurate.
Arguably, the credibility chart has been the most difficult part of our Foundation presentation, in part because we have tried to make an easy to use, and useful chart of subjective and complicated questions.
The chart is based upon several basic premises, one being that the courts and many people equate a level of education and knowledge with theoretical credibility. The other is that our Foundation doesn't have near the resources to make a complex evaluation of the credibility of each contributor to our websites.
Some have questioned, for instance, why we have chosen to give the credibility of government facts and statistics our highest theoretically rating of five stars.
Our thinking is that government facts and statistics are generally reliable. However what is less reliable, hence our lower rating, is when Government personnel attempt to quote from such facts out of context, or worse when they misuse those facts on purpose or by accident.
For example, we generally would give our highest rating--five stars, to a government report saying that there have been 52,850 killed in auto accidents in a given time period, but we would consider it, less credible for a government employee to say in a speech, “Fifty-thousand people died last year in auto accidents.” The government employee would probably receive one, three, or possible four stars, depending on the person's education and position.
We usually don't rank organizations anything other than 1-star because they are often dynamic and composed of a myriad of influences making a ranking difficult and subjective.
When we do rank organizations higher -- such as The New York Times (which we rate as 2-star) -- and that organization prints an editorial, a quote from that editorial would carry a 2-star rating. However, if that same organization quotes an individual who we believe should be rated a 1, 3 or 4 star, that quote would carry that 1, 3 or 4 star rating.
Those who request their name be withheld from their responses will be posted as anonymous.
5. Gathering/Posting Reponses
We contacted individuals and organizations' principals (or spokespersons), or found a quote in a mainstream publication that answers the question. The quotes are dated so the reader can put them in an historical context. For simplicity, dates in history are reflected as either A.D. or B.C., rather than the academic C.E. and B.C.E. (Common Era and Before Common Era).
In the case of published reports, our editor may apply findings to either the pro or con side, despite the reports' slant or views that could be contrary to our perception or use of their published information.
We always solicit responses from both the pro and con side of each question.
6. Clarification/Modification
When we receive responses to our questions, we generally send an e-mail clarifying the questions we understood they were responding to and may ask clarifying follow-up questions in an effort to keep the comments on target.
Additionally, we may ask pointed and leading questions, or play "devil's advocate" in an effort to clarify or simplify the responses.
7. Diversity
Because we are striving for diverse responses, if two responses to one question are similar, and from two equally credible sources, we will generally post the response from the individual/organization with the fewest responses on our site.
8. Response Quality
We will normally post up to ten (a minimum of 5 pro and 5 con) of the best responses per question. The responses are judged by their directness, clarity, conciseness and sources.
We have more interest in sourced responses and less in political or emotional statements. Sometimes, however, we will post political or emotional statements if they are particularly interesting or thought provoking.
9. Quotes
-
All quotes and comments are sourced and/or cited as to source.
-
Exact quotes are shown in italics with "double" quotes. Although style guides suggest that publications, when quoting several paragraphs that continue the quotation, use quotes at the start of each paragraph, we find this confusing. We instead utilize quotations only at the beginning and end of the full quote.
-
Omissions are shown with ellipses (. . .). Words added to quotes, usually for context, are shown with square brackets [. . .].
-
'Paraphrased quotes' are shown in single quotes, and may have been edited for clarity or brevity without changing the intent of the statement. All are sourced and cited as to source.
10. Time/Resources
When someone writes to suggest that we review particular studies and/or articles, we will normally ask for the exact comments they think are suitable for specific questions so we can more efficiently find and review them.
11. Bias
While those involved in this site have biases like most people, we work hard to keep such bias off the site. If you perceive bias on the site, let us know so it can be reviewed and corrected.
Additionally, we have made some graphic design decisions, such as pro v. con, red v. green, left-column v. right-column, and other distinctions. While some may consider that some of these choices suggest bias to one side or the other (for example; that a column on the left suggests the political "left"), any such bias is unintended.
12. Editorial Commentary on the Accuracy / Honesty of Statements:
Although many people and organizations are occasionally careless or
intentionally misleading with facts, data, and communications, we at
ProCon.org believe that government and their officials should always
disseminate accurate and truthful information (with the arguable exception
of real national security needs).
The site's Editor will therefore comment when we believe that information
put out by government officials or organizations is false, misleading, or
erroneous.
We will also comment in those few cases when the contributor believes that
the information they are contributing should appear to others as having the
opposite view as a plain reading of the material would seem to suggest.
We don't comment on information that may be slanted, biased or not clearly
valid.
All comments by the site's Editor will be noted in red in this format:
[Editor's Note: The government report is based on the dubious testimony of a
physician whose license to practice medicine was revoked within six months
of the report's release.]
13. Editorial Discretion
We reserve editorial discretion in determining what responses are put on and taken off the site, as well as placement.
14. Comments Invited
We invite your comments on how to make our Methodology & Policies better, clearer and more evenhanded.
