Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Archive Feb 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

proposed change to essay

Hello, I've noticed the minor disagreement about the whole "Esperanza was a nice idea..." section of the criticisms raised against it. I suggest the following:

Esperanza's intentions, however well-intentioned, were impossible to implement, and a Wikiproject is not necessary to spread goodwill.

Just a thought. I'm trying not to stir up the whole debate again. --Kyoko 00:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Esperanza was not a WikiProject. A WikiProject contributes to the Encyclopedia by improving it's content - Esperanza did not do that. The point of the sentence is that the idea was fine, with or without Esperanza but that such an idea is impossible to implement. Esperanza's intentions are irrelevant, it's a warning to all future organisations along the same lines. I have no idea why this has randomly been brought up again a month after it effectively finished. I deeply wish everyone who keeps fiddling with this page would just go away and edit something else. This sounds crabby and I;m sorry for that but Esperanza is dead and I'm getting seriously fed up with people refusing to let go. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Dev, but remember to handle things in patience. When in doubt, fuck it. DoomsDay349 00:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dev, please remember that this should not be about your personal dislike for Esperanza. I'm not disagreeing with what was done, just about the attitude that it was done in. Also think about the fact that while you say you are "seriously fed up with people refusing to let go", there are likely many people just as fed up with the unnecessary meanness being directed at this now past organization and the people who supported it. -- Natalya 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(conflict with Natalya)This is the change that I made which was reverted. Dev, I brought up 3 different reasons for my edit: "'nice' is sorta weasel wordy; EA wasn't impossible, it was just hard to implement; clarify last clause". So then, why did you revert all 3 of my different edits just because you disagree with one? Let me give you my reasoning for each:

• "nice" is sorta weasel wordy - It is more of a habit for me to remove any occurrences of "nice" if I happen to stumble upon it. This doesn't necessarily mean that I never use "nice", it's just that it was an old habit of mine, and I often try to improve the wording of the phrases. My English teachers always taught me to avoid such common words like "nice" or "stuff". I'm merely trying to improve this page
• EA wasn't impossible, it was just hard to implement - Simply put, Esperanza's goal was possible, it was just that we never were able to implement it. We never worked hard enough.
• clarify last clause - Since when is adding clarity against Wikipedia policy?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: I must agree with Natalya. Dev, COOL it.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 01:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing about the usage of the bullet point, it is under the category "Noted complaints included:", so it is defined to be personal opinions anyway. -- Natalya 01:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's try not to bring this into an unnecessary edit war. I agree the phrase was subjective. If, however, we can find a relevant phrase in the MFD, then we should put it back in with an inline reference. However, the rest of the complaints are, I believe, uncontroversial and understood, therefore there's no need to inline them. With a somewhat controversial statement, however, a reference helps. DoomsDay349 02:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Esperenza was a nice idea..." Opinion stated as fact. Quadzilla99 14:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care that much, forget it. Quadzilla99 15:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing to realize is that all those bullet points are under the header "Noted complaints included", which designates them as opinions anyway. -- Natalya 14:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-evaluating a paragraph that was previously removed

Prior to some of the edit war nastiness, the following paragraph was part of the essay, removed, and never really given the chance to be fully discussed:

Aside from participating in the group's official programs, members of Esperanza were also encouraged to show support to other editors through such methods as awarding barnstars for good work and supporting other editors with kind words during hard times. Even though Esperanza has been closed down, some of its former members continue to advocate the need for supporting other editors in this manner. It is worth noting that these goals were not unique to Esperanza; several other community groups were also founded on the principle of supporting fellow editors, and some of them are still active.

I feel that this is a well-written paragraph that would serve a purpose in the essay.

1. It describes with accuracy one of the historical goals of the organization.
2. For Esperanza supporters, it stresses the positive and encouraging atmosphere that was always one of the central themes.
3. For those who argue that Esperanza was unnecessary, it stresses that community support was not unique to Esperanza, and continues to this day without the organization.

Anyone have any comments about this paragraph, either in support or against it? It would be nice to get a good amount of comments so we can get a clearer consensus on this paragraph than we got last time before we potentially re-add it. Eric (EWS23) 03:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason not to have this paragraph. It's something that I totally agree with. DoomsDay349 03:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Same here. I don't think that there's a problem with this paragraph.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?}Reviews? 03:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I still think it's a good summary (I said so before, but this page has been "archived" enough times already and it's gone), and is in the spirit of the MfD closing parameters.--Alf ^melmac 03:10, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it's good. Thanks for bringing it back up for discussion, Eric. -- Natalya 03:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No! We must say that Esperanza was eeeeeevil! ... oh, wait, sorry. (laughs) Seriously, this is a good paragraph. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see the notice above which directs any comments about the essay to the village pump. Hiding Talk 00:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk pages are here so that there is no edit warring

Come on guys, let's try and be vaguely mature. We all know that edit warring is bad. We all know that we should discuss controversial changes on the talk pages in order to not get into edit wars. And yet, we're still reverting each other back and forth on this page! Is that any way to edit?

Yes, we've discussed the changes here. But just because they've been discussed doesn't mean that there is full reign to edit the page as we see fit. The whole point of discussion is to come to a resolution. Without that, we are just back to edit warring. So please, resolve the problems here wherever they are to be resolved, then edit. Otherwise, I imagine the page will be a good candidate to be protected again, which is not helping anyone. Also, remember that we're here to build an encyclopedia, not bicker about long-since-past pages. Thank you, -- Natalya 12:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Changes to the essay aren't to be discussed here, they are to be discussed at the Village pump per the notice at the top of the page. That was a part of the outcome of the closing down of Esperanza. Any discussion here does not sadly mandate a change to the essay. Hiding Talk 13:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Just curious, does anyone remember where that was brought up in the "official decision"? -- Natalya 13:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It was suggested at the mfd talk page to use the pump, and was then implemented during the closing. The idea is that it allows any changes to this page, which I hope we all will concede can be contentious, to get a wide audience. There is no "official decision", since Wikipedia operates by consensus. Hiding Talk 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Esperanza (from WP:VPA)

Hi! I would like to request for assistance regarding the now inactive project Esperanza. There has been some recent discussion that now can be viewed on this archive regarding edits made to this following section on Wikipedia:Esperanza:

A month later, Esperanza was once again nominated for deletion. Noted complaints included:

• The overhaul, which was allegedly done to prevent the deletion of Esperanza rather than to actually fix it, was unsuccessful in reforming Esperanza.
• Esperanza had a "holier-than-thou" belief that without Esperanza, Wikipedia would melt into the ground. Likewise, there had been noted complaints that non-Esperanzians were treated as inferior.
• Esperanza had set non-Esperanza members apart through their activities, such as Esperanza Collaboration of the Month.
• The bureaucracy at Esperanza is anti-Wikipedia; the council made binding decisions through off-wiki conversations which were only made available after the event.
• Esperanza was a nice idea but impossible to implement; additionally, a large project isn't needed to spread hope and good cheer.

Here's a little background on our situation. There was one edit made on Febrary 8 2007. Editing on this page was scarce until this point in time, since that one edit ignited an edit war. The edit in question attempted to fix some biased statements in the essay currently present on Esperanza. As you can see, the edit was eventually reverted, and I then unsuccessfully tried to reach some middle ground on the situation. I was then reverted, then an edit was made again in which the information in question was removed, then another reversion was made, in which I attempted to introduce my edits again.

A meaningful edit was made in the purposes of calming down the edit war by adding unbiased language. (see following minor edit if needed) All edits have been reverted due to claims that consensus wasn't reached because discussion was not held on the Village Pump. Another edit was made to the page, which was then reverted. I then reverted in the hopes of stopping the edit warring, but was then reverted.

As you can see, we (over at WT:EA) simply cannot reach a decision on how we are going to word the essay currently on Wikipedia:Esperanza. I have sent a note to one of the participants in the edit war ([1]), but no replies have been made to that comment as of now. We are clearly in a deadlock, and I just want to resolved this matter right here in the interest of gaining a further consensus. Should we edit Wikipedia:Esperanza in the interest of keeping an unbiased page (WP:NPOV), or shall we keep the essay in its current form?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to keep the project, or are you trying to create an article for historical purposes? If you're just looking for historical reference, the article could be edited a little to make it more informative, but perhaps should be done by someone with NPOV regarding Esperanza? It seems to me, from what I read, that the project was quite controversial. However, since it seems to have spawned several projects, an article by the name is relevant as a historical reference. If it were me, I'd ask someone not involved to rewrite it, then protect the article so the edit wars don't continue. (I'd be happy to help, for what it's worth.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomXP411 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

The essay was composed through consensus editing. I personally feel people should just move on, and that perhaps protection is the best bet. The biased statements Ed refers to are indeed biased, since they refer to complaints made at the mfd. Now I'd aver that removing or rewriting such complaints would be a POV. Esperanza was criticised, it was criticised in such a way and I think we need to accept that and move on. Maybe the page should simply be protected. Let's just clarify what is said at the mfd and what is said in the essay. I think it is unfair to state the dispute is " simply cannot reach a decision on how we are going to word the essay currently on Wikipedia:Esperanza". The essay has already been written, it's been fairly stable for a month. The dispute is over changes to the essay.

Picking it apart

So let's have a look at the disputed text then, and the basis for each bulleted point within the essay.

The overhaul

In the second mfd:

The Esperanza essay states: "The overhaul, which was allegedly done to prevent the deletion of Esperanza rather than to actually fix it, was unsuccessful in reforming Esperanza."

Holier than thou

In the first mfd:

Referenced in the second mfd:

The Esperanza essay states: "Esperanza had a "holier-than-thou" belief that without Esperanza, Wikipedia would melt into the ground. Likewise, there had been noted complaints that non-Esperanzians were treated as inferior."

Set apart

In the second mfd:

The Esperanza essay states: "Esperanza had set non-Esperanza members apart through their activities, such as Esperanza Collaboration of the Month."

Bureaucracy

In the second mfd:

The Esperanza essay states: "The bureaucracy at Esperanza is anti-Wikipedia; the council made binding decisions through off-wiki conversations which were only made available after the event."

Nice idea

In the second mfd:

The Esperanza essay states: "Esperanza was a nice idea but impossible to implement; additionally, a large project isn't needed to spread hope and good cheer."

Fair summaries?

The question, therefore, is whether the essay correctly summarises criticisms, since all the above listed criticisms are introduced within the essay as follows: "A month later, Esperanza was once again nominated for deletion. Noted complaints included:" Are complaints therefore summarised fairly, or unfairly? Is it a POV to include these criticisms, or to not include them. Ed writes: "Should we edit Wikipedia:Esperanza in the interest of keeping an unbiased page (WP:NPOV), or shall we keep the essay in its current form?"

I put it to people that the essay in its current form is unbiased in its presentation of the criticisms and that the criticisms are of note in an essay which should describe "its history, philosophy and its fate". Thoughts appreciated. Hiding Talk 10:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

While I understand the rationale behind discussing this on the village pump (to get broader input), are we going to bother the folks at the village pump every time someone proposes a change to the essay? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the essay something that's going to need changing a lot? I'd hope not. I hate to say it, but I can see a point where the essay itself gets listed for deletion if it ends up generating debate here every week. Hiding Talk 19:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If it's protected, and it asserts is own importance as a progenitor of other active projects, do you think that will happen? -- TomXP411^[Talk] 21:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Really, I don't know. How long has it been since it was closed down and we're still discussing it. Hiding Talk 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is nobody's fault that this edit war began. However, I agree with Hiding's opinions stating "I put it to people that the essay in its current form is unbiased in its presentation of the criticisms and that the criticisms are of note in an essay which should describe 'its history, philosophy and its fate'". Well, that makes sense, but the other side of the arguements (counterarguements) were not presented. In order to preserve Wikipedia's reputation as an unbiased source and in the interest of satisfying both sides of this immense debate, I think that we must be able to present material to our future readers and editors in an unbiased tone. Yes, the anti-Esperanza opinions are dominant in Wikipedia society today; do we need to rub that information in to other editors? We must "Let the facts speak for themselves", and allow future visitors to Wikipedia:Esperanza to form their own opinions about this group. Therefore, I think that the essay should be edited for the above reasons.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

What about abbreviating the whole thing? Instead of giving a blow-by-blow, just state that "Esperanza started out as a way to accomplish several goals, xxx included. Since the original group encompassed too many goals to be effective, new projects were created that focused on specific objectives." Simple, concise, and not gonna offend anyone. Bringing up bad feelings and arguments isn't necessary and is probably counterproductive. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 02:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed, what does this section do if not establish the project and which the complaints counterpoint:

You can't counterpoint criticisms which counterpoint the points already made. Maybe it would help if you could explain why you feel so aggrieved. What is it that upsets you here? The essay basically does this: Here's what Esperanza was set up for, here's what it hoped to do, here's where the wider community felt it went wrong and it was decided to shut it down. Now we can do that, as Tom above notes, very briefly. We can say Esperanza was a project founded "to support the encyclopedia indirectly by encouraging a sense of community". However it proved contentious, with two deletion debates eventually decentralising the project as it had become "overly hierarchical". But that doesn't satisfy the close, so to me feels like the wrong thing to do. What do you want here? What more do you need the essay to say? Let's cut to the chase, say you had two sentences to address all of the above, what would you write. And don't dicker about only having two sentences, work with me here. Let's try and put this to bed. What exactly is the issue. Do you not agree that Esperanza was shut down because the community felt it had gone wrong? What's your take? Hiding Talk 09:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, I find it absolutely extraordinary that Ed is basically trying to whitewash Esperanza's history by downplaying the criticisms and emphasising the good points given he voted to delete and co-nominated Esperanza with me. I just don't get why everyone can't leave this alone. The essay was fine and stable for a month until Quadzilla came along and removed a sentence that no-one else had a problem with until Quadzilla decided that WP:OR applies to the Wikipedia namespace and rmed it. Unsurprisingly, he got reverted, but Ed and Natalya used it as a catalyst for all kinds of changes that no-one agreed on and then accused me of starting an edit war. Ultimately, none of the suggested changes bring any benefit to the essay with the exception that it fudges the reasons why Esperanza was deleted - if you were to read Ed's final version, you would not understand why it had been deactivated at all, that the community apparently took the decision to shut down a thriving and successful organisation at random. But that's not what happened, what is described in the essay is what happened, and it seems to me that Ed and his fellow ex-Esperanzans really don't like that and have been trying repeatedly to change it to make way for a possible future Esperanza II. Note Ed's change of " Esperanza was a nice idea but impossible to implement" to " Esperanza was an excellent idea but very difficult to implement" here - what exactly did this do to improve the essay besides downplay the criticism and "big up" the positive points? It's been like that throughout this debate. The essay as it stands is fine and gives due weight to both sides - obviously the criticism is given greater hearing because it outweighs the good; that's why Esperanza was deleted in the first place. Ed's only credible argument is that the essay needs to be "neutral" - which it is. Ed et al keeps stirring up this entire thing over and over again, and I think everyone, certainly me, would appreciate it if they would stop, because it's only wasting everyone's time. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

(session data lost):*You keep complaining that Esperanza has been recently edited after weeks of inactivity and should be left alone; this, however, happens all the time in the real world. Would we leave a cold case alone, or would we still try to pursue the case in order to bring justice into this world? No, or else the legal justice system would become unfair to those who hasn't received justice yet. Would we cease to update Wikipedia articles as time passes? Of course not, since doing so will give readers inadequate information in the present time. Likewise, it is beneficial to our editors to continue to edit Wikipedia pages as our encyclopedia evolves.

• I also don't appreciate the fact that you seem to be attacking me in your previous post. If you oppose anything in this discussion, please oppose the topic being discussed, not the person discussing the topic.
• Editing Wikipedia:Esperanza in the interest of neutrality is not a waste of time. Consider the following: There are 3 million editors with accounts along with several more anonymous editors. There are 1.6 million articles, most of which belong to a certain WikiProject. Numerous editors would have worked on a particular article 1 year after its creation. Therefore, editing a page not in the main namespace is not a waste of time.
• Nice is generally weasel-wordy and should be removed from Wikipedia pages in order to give the encyclopedia a more professional look. You should have learned in 5th grade that you should never use the word "nice" when writing something.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 23:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Nice is a direct quote, and content policies don't apply to Wikipedia space content. At some point can we not let Esperanza go? I mean, the comparison with a murder inquiry? Is that a realsitic comparison? Yes, it is beneficial to keep editing our articles, but not this one essay which shouldn't matter. Is it not possible to close this chapter and move on? Hiding Talk 23:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If we can directly quote statements against Esperanza, can't we directly quote statements in favor of improving the community? The statements don't necessarily have to be pro-EA, but it would be nice if there were statements still encouraging editors to reach out to the community.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 00:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

All this back and forth is another reason I think the article should be edited to a bare summary, as per my above comment. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 02:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Or we can delete the essay itself. That can end this dispute.-Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it's a good idea to simply erase parts of Wikipedia's history, even if it's bad history? If enough people are throwing the term around, it might be good to have something around to give people context. Make it a simple article, don't list all the drama. Just state what the group was and name the groups that were created in its downfall. -- TomXP411^[Talk] 05:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No, we cannot delete the essay. It was part of a close endorsed by deletion review. And you'd never get consensus on what to replace it with. The idea was to use the essay to let people know what went wrong and why such organisations are a bad idea. I'd be happy to let this back and forth go, seriously. But that takes two. To answer Ed's point about including a direct quote about improving the community, I have to ask again, why? Why are we still arguing about Esperanza this long after it was shut down for being divisive. Why do we still need to be divisive about it? What more lessons do we need to learn about divisiveness? How is this helpful to the encyclopedia? Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 12:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This debate is not a question of divisiveness; it's a question of whether it's ok to edit Wikipedia:Esperanza! What is wrong with changing an essay that hasn't been edited for a month? Is that not healthy to the encyclopedia, since it encourages improvement in all areas of Wikipedia? To me, it seems that the other side of this debate is not open to change! It seems like they love to revert edits that actually do no harm to the essay! For example: this edit was reverted because of the following reasoning, "it wasn't an excellent idea - it's been months, please move on". Well, if it wasn't an excellent idea, then why insist on calling it nice? Also, since when did time become a valid arguement for keeping a page in its previous version??? Over time, things change! Society changes! Civilization around the world evolves! Our expectations of things adapt to new technology. Therefore, why is that editors are not accepting the WP:BOLD edits to the essay and keep reverting the versions to those of January when it's February???

To answer Hiding's question about divisiveness anyway...I think that this is helpful to the encyclopedia. Think about it: what would the world be like today if there were no debate, criticism, inquiry, doubt, change (oh! that word again!), skepticism, dispute, or uncertainty? If that were to happen, this would turn into a very boring world that does not evolve and follows the same boring daily routine that follows the same boring tradition that has never change for thousands of years...my point is: this debate is healthy to the encyclopedia.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 14:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed, if you are going to keep ignoring the points put to you, I feel I mustr withdraw from debating the issue with you. The reasons why Esperanza was to be shut down, to be replaced as an essay and to be left alone and moved on from were made at two mfd's and a deletion review. There's nothing more to be said. Give it up. Article policies apply to the article namespace. Here we are in the Wikipedia namespace. We decided what to do. We did it. Let it be. Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 14:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hiding, I would like to point out the edits you and Dev made during this debate in the interest of trying to keep the essay at its current state:

[2][3][4][5][6][7]

Likewise, I would like to point out the edits that other users (Quadzilla99/Ed/Natalya/Richardshusr/User:Chris is me/EWS23) have made to improve the essay to a certain point:

[8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

As you can see, you and Dev are the primary editors trying to revert changes made to this essay. These changes have been made by 6 editors which outnumber the reverters by 4. Clearly, there is a desire by other editors to change this essay to reflect opinions about this organization in an unbiased manner. This biased essay would put ideas into future readers who never even hear of Esperanza. The essay would give the impression that helping the Wikipedian community is a bad thing. As I said before, Let the facts speak for themselves! I propose that we just add basic summaries of the MfDs and the DRV and the pre-deletion conflict, and then we'll be done! No opinions are needed, nor are statements supporting a particular point of view needed.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 17:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we are. Why? Because these changes you suggest do not improve the essay. They attempt to skew it to talk about how marvellous Esperanza was and what a pity it was shut down. That you said "The essay would give the impression that helping the Wikipedian community is a bad thing." is very telling, as it says no such thing. It says that Esperanza is a bad thing: surely you have learnt by now that Esperanza != community? The community made it very clear where it stands on Esperanza, and the essay reflects that. It is you who insists that the essay needs to be unbiased - unbias does not equal equal weighting. Due weight is given to the feelings of the community, the community which DELETED Esperanza. They didn't say "Oh look, what a spiffing idea Esperanza is, I know, let's close it for fun.", they made strong and valid criticisms that are listed. Read your comments, you are chafing against the reverts themselves, not your edits that have been reverted. You don't have anything to say about WHAT changes you would like to introduce, just that we won't let you. And that, I think more than anything, demonstrated that you are just replyng now to wind everyone up than because you actually want to make meaningful, constructive edits. You just want to whitewash. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I already established a few examples of changes that I want to introduce! [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27] These changes were already proposed by 6 editors! This is why we are here to discuss the essay. We cannot reach consensus on the matter!

Let's take a closer look at the close of WP:MFD/EA:

Note how the closing admin wants the essay to describe the history, philosophy and fate of Esperanza. Now, let us break down each paragraph of Wikipedia:Esperanza one by one:

This paragraph is mainly history, but touches lightly on philosophy

That's most likely about philosophy

This probably might talk about history.

History or Philosophy?

Probably history

This is most likely history

The first sentence touches on history, but do the bullet points discuss either history, philosophy, or fate? No, these sentences only discuss criticism, remarks, opinions, and arguements from various editors.

This discusses EA's fate.

This discussed either fate or history.

As you can see, this essay is already a violation of the MfD closure! I recommend that we replace this section:

with this sentence:

The suggested change above would still encompass the first 4 bullet points. IMHO, the 5th bullet point is merely opinion and cannot be supported by multiple arguements. Basically, the change I'm proposing sort of "tones down" the comments against Esperanza. It both helps the essay with the MfD closure while trying to satisfy the arguements of everyone in this debate. Any ideas?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 19:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So you admit your stated intention is to whitewash the essay. Right. Well, sorry, but I'm not interested in dialoguing with you anymore when you clearly have an agenda to push. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, what exactly are you interested in? Everyone involved in this conflict wanted to discuss here, so here we are! Why is it that you and Hiding no longer have an interest in discussing this topic? Does this mean that you want to have an edit war again on Wikipedia:Esperanza? This is what it sounds like to me. I don't see the problem with my edit. It is both harmless and satisfies both sides of the debate for the following reasons: it tones down the arguements against Esperanza, but it still criticises EA for its faults. This is an attempt to make the essay more neutral; I would not call this an agenda. I don't see why you're all so hesitant to welcome edits in this page!--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 19:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I want to get on with improving Wikipedia. You want to keep "discussing" and edit warring. Hiding and I have made it clear why we do not wish to allow your "improvements" to stand, and you are simply ignoring us so you can continue to whinge. I have wasted enough time trying to engage you in a dialogue you are not interested in, and thus I withdraw. I will repeat myself on final time: the essay is fine as it stands, it was stable for a month until one user decided to remove stuff he disagreed with, Esperanza is DEAD, please move on. Even if you still cry over Esperanza's demise every night, I hope you will have the decency to allow the rest of us to get on with our work instead of having pointless discussions like this. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The condition of the current essay is not "fine". That is merely your perception. You have not made any counterarguements with my proposal above. You (and Hiding) are the ones who are ignoring the suggestions of 6 other editors so that you can further your own plans. You have not responded to my arguements stating that the essay already violates the MfD closure; although it was stable, we need to edit the essay to satisfy a consensus established on the MfD and a DRV supporting the MfD. That is why the essay should be changed.

Why don't we just delete that particular section in its entirety? If we're going to keep going back and forth in this debate, why not remove it?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Bye bye Ed. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion

This edit war is pointless. Esperanza is inactive, and it shouldn't be wasting any more time. I suggest doing the following:

1. List notable arguments given in favour of Esperanza from its MfDs. 2. List notable criticisms of Esperanza, again, taken from the MfDs.

Please stop this edit war. If anything, it only serves to illustrate how divisive an issue Esperanza became, and continues to be. --Kyoko 00:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

So, that would in effect be the essay we have right now then? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Now, as in which revision? I thought that the bulleted list of criticism was a good idea. Match it with a bulleted list of pro-EA arguments, and maybe everybody will be satisfied. In order to counter possible charges of POV, maybe these bulleted points should all come from the MfDs. I think the list of criticisms was directly from the MfDs, and the comment about not needing a large project to spread hope was said by User:Tohru Honda13 on the EA talk page, in January 2007.

I was perfectly happy with the essay as it stood for a month, though. --Kyoko 01:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Kyoko; God do we think alike!)::Not exactly...the essay right now doesn't quote any pro-Esperanza statements; I do like Kyoko's idea, however. Perhaps we should explain in details the arguements for keeping Esperanza in the first MfD. Then we can explain, in detail, the arguements for deleting EA in the second MfD. The version of the essay that we have been debating over was like a big glob of jelly! How can we outline the criticisms against Esperanza if we don't provide the reasoning of those who wanted to keep Esperanza?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 01:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I had been thinking of something a bit simpler: say that Esperanza was a project with a certain founding intention, list the programs it started and what happened to them, list a few (maybe 4 or 5 at most) arguments for and against Esperanza, quoted directly from the MfDs, and say that as a result of consensus, Esperanza was made inactive. I don't think that the arguments should be explained in detail, because that opens the door to bias for or against Esperanza. --Kyoko 02:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)