`  ===Minimum basis of principle for co-operation=== OK, I am willing to work together with all of you, but only on the following basis: #that we all accept the existence and the legitimacy of our ``opponent's`` POV in the article. In practice, I think that this would mean that, if a particular POV is described in a paragraph, the ``opponent`` will not remove it, nor edit it so as to distort it, nor even weigh in with counterarguments (!). Counterarguments should receive their own paragraph, to describe them more thoroughly, they shouldn't be used to destroy a POV ; #no personal attacks #that we work in several stages, i.e. one side of the debate writes a full draft, and only after they are done can the other side edit the draft. In this way we could approach NPOV in several iterations. #that we focus on the bigger picture rather than bickering about details #that we leave the debate on the title for later. once we manage to write a full article, we will be so proud of ourselves that we will be able to solve that problem Who can agree to this? -    ==Strategy for cooperative writing==  Hello, I trust everyone had a good weekend?  Jay, Buff and Pir, I would really like to work with you on the, er, list of bullet points.  Some open issues remain:  ===The title of the article we are writing===  Is it Occupation of Palestine, Arab-Israeli conflict, or what?  ===The names of the sides===  Which leads to what we should call the sides which advocate the POVs expressed by Buff & Jay's, ah, 'duelling bullets' above. Arab vs. Israel? Worldwide consensus vs. a few extremists? PLO vs. right-wing Jews?  ===How to work together===  I think we can get started on the article, even if we can't yet agree on where the article should go, and what we should call the ``sides``. But if the name of one side becomes a stumbling block, I don't know what to do. Buff, you're not going to insist that the POV you outlined on Friday (and which led me to hope for a peaceful Sabbath -) is the Palestinian side, are you? Can we attribute that POV to a particular person or organization instead? (We can note in the article that he or it claims to represent a side...)  Let's list some working titles:  * opposing views on the disposition of the region called Palestine * views of homeland creation in the Middle East * why there is no peace in Palestine * background of the Arab-Israeli conflict * your entries here  All I know is that HistoryBuffER is trying very hard to conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and that pir is being very nice and harmonious, and that Jay knows 100 times more history than I do.     Sorry, I forgot to mention IZAK. He's helping, too, and knows some points of history. So, this brings our ``list of players`` up to:  * Buff - ``pro-Palestinian`` but hates scare quotes! :: Disagree with POV characterization. Being pro-facts and pro-fairness means just that. If facts and fairness favor the Palestinian side that's just the fact of life and is not necessarily POV  fairness is not always blind.  19:40, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC) * Ed - tries to be neutral but is really pro-Israel * IZAK - hotly pro-Israel * Jay - pro-Israel * Pir - very nice, harmonious person  Are we all on board now?`