00:3600:36, 20 December 2007diffhist−1,845
Occupation 101
and RS should still not be replaced by editors' personal conclusions; editors across the spectrum still believe this is out of line with style
00:2400:24, 20 December 2007diffhist−5,733
Second Intifada
they were "fixed specifically", right now you are just 'mass reverting' to the version before the removal of non RS & other selective highlighting
08:2608:26, 19 December 2007diffhist−1,845
Occupation 101
again restore RS-supported passages instead of editors' personal observations; extensive lists have been objected to by all sides
08:0708:07, 19 December 2007diffhist−3,994
Second Intifada
of course the sterile rv to the version using non-RS and selective highlighting, discussed weeks ago on Talk, is still not okay
08:0408:04, 19 December 2007diffhist−1,488
Second Intifada
not only does the ref contradict the claim of "reversing the curb", but we don't just suddnly decide to have an extended discussion of one of many issues here, especially not one-sided
23:3823:38, 17 December 2007diffhist+315
Second Intifada
not only are those quotes about "reminder of Jewish designs" entirely out of place, but so is using a brief mention to make an argument when the existing text is exactly in line with the facts of NYT