Minimum basis of principle for cooperation 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 opponents 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 shouldnt be used to destroy a POV  no personal attacks that we work in several stages ie 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 ArabIsraeli conflict or what  The names of the sides  Which leads to what we should call the sides which advocate the POVs expressed by Buff  Jays ah duelling bullets above Arab vs Israel Worldwide consensus vs a few extremists PLO vs rightwing Jews  How to work together  I think we can get started on the article even if we cant 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 dont know what to do Buff youre 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  Lets 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 ArabIsraeli conflict  your entries here  All I know is that HistoryBuffER is trying very hard to conform to Wikipedias NPOV policy and that pir is being very nice and harmonious and that Jay knows  times more history than I do     Sorry I forgot to mention IZAK Hes helping too and knows some points of history So this brings our list of players up to   Buff  proPalestinian but hates scare quotes  Disagree with POV characterization Being profacts and profairness means just that If facts and fairness favor the Palestinian side thats just the fact of life and is not necessarily POV  fairness is not always blind    Oct  UTC  Ed  tries to be neutral but is really proIsrael  IZAK  hotly proIsrael  Jay  proIsrael  Pir  very nice harmonious person  Are we all on board now