Talk:Palestinian views of the peace process/archive 7

Page format

The discussion page is now organized. The format is simple so don't go and post how the article is NPOV in the copyright section. --Bensaccount

For the continuing discussion of page formate see Page format

Discussion

As a newcomer to this page (which seems controversial) I am trying to understand what is going on. I find the best way to do this is to organize the problems into catagories and bold the main statements from each comment. Bensaccount 19:16, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Probably the best way is just to view the diffs (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Palestinian_views_of_the_peace_process&dummy=1&diff=0&oldid=2943547), in this case. The inclusion dispute is largely old hat: now I've ruthlessly edited this article, those who were calling for its wholesale deletion seem happy enough to live with its existence. Martin 21:17, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I thought your seperation into archives was productive, but I don't think your summaries were particularly useful, and I think they could have been misleading, so I removed them. Martin 23:32, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The summaries were not missleading. They were general comments about where the discussions were heading. Some were not even written by me. The comment about reversion is directly from the reversion page. The points about NPOV are necessary (the discussion is extremely non-productive). Put the summaries back or dispute this or I will put them back.Bensaccount 23:39, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you decide to take out all the sections for no reason like that, it will just result in the whole mess starting over again. Bensaccount 23:46, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If you think the summaries are misleading fix them so they are not. Bensaccount 23:55, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

*sigh* It wasn't for "no reason": there was a reason, and I explained it. I felt that your summaries were misleading and unproductive. I felt a straight archive was more useful in this case.

Anyway, I've fixed the summaries, as you asked. Martin 23:59, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And the reversion section? The purpose of these sections is to focus the discussion instead of going around in circles. The reversion section (as the summary implied) should be about whether or not the changes were vandalism. Now the reversion section is once again going in circles. Understand? Bensaccount 00:07, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's your perspective. Mine is that who started reverting first (RK), who reverted the most (RK again) and whether any of the edits were vandalism (they weren't) is unlikely to be productive. Better to say, we have two versions of the article, should we pick one, or the other, or perhaps a third that is yet to be written? Martin 00:17, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No that is not my perspective.

In general a revert is the advised action to deal with vandalism. It is not the advised action when dealing with edits that were made in good faith - indeed, we strongly recommend against it. Instead, have a look at our advice on staying cool when the editing gets hot.

I got this directly from the reversion article. If you want to argue this point go take it up at Wikipedia:How to revert a page to an earlier version

What you said, however, IS a POV. Bensaccount 00:35, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also can you stop taking away the discussion subsection. It is necessary to seperate the discussion from the summary.Bensaccount 00:39, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am bringing back the reversion section. It is not "my perspective". Bensaccount 00:49, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Just because something may be true, doesn't mean that it's productive, or that it is a useful summary. Martin 01:40, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It is useful because it illustrates what reversions are, (there seems to be more of an argument about NPOV in this section). If a section is about reversions it should be about reversions not NPOV. Hence the definition must be known. Bensaccount 02:06, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Then link to revert. Reverts are not defined as something to avoid - that's just a recommendation. And text stating that RK may be to blame is unlikely to be helpful, regardless of whether it is true. Martin 02:13, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The section on reverts should explain who reverted and what a revert is and what is wrong with it!!!!!! (I am bringing it back). Bensaccount 02:24, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why??????

If you want to express your moral outrage at reverts, surely wikipedia talk:revert is the suitable place for that, not here?

On second thought, perhaps what you are trying to say is that the actual reversion issue is no longer of importance (and never was) on this article. I will assume that this is true, but if reversion problems start up I am bringing back the summary. Bensaccount 02:30, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)