Jump to content

Talk:Best alternative to a negotiated agreement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Duplications

[edit]

Removed duplicate listing of negotiations.com/articles/best-alternative/ article, replaced with alternative definition to BATNA --Negotiations (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ok, this seems done now, right? KR  Done 17387349L8764 (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use Hypertext

[edit]

There are many hypertextable keywords in this article that aren't hypertext. For example John Forbes Nash and "Getting to Yes" should be hypertexted to the articles on these entities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.98.121.114 (talk) 12:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ok, seems done now. KR  Done 17387349L8764 (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More Complex Example section

[edit]

Returned the last section "More Complex Example," deleted by Stratavelo several days ago. It is neither pejorative, untrue, nor an opinion as he stated. While the entire page is not written especially well, this section IS a factual representation of the events of that particular negotiation and resultant loss of jobs. The idea that it may have an effect on a current SLI negotiation may indeed be accurate; however simply because one side of the current negotiation doesn't want their constituents to consider their true BATNA, this factual information shouldn't be hidden from them as part of a negotiation tactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by USNPilot (talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion as to the accuracy or fairness of the Southwest example. However, I found that included a large amount of detail which didn't contribute to the BATNA article -- it was written more like a business school case than like an encyclopedia article. So I have pared down this section, leaving only the essentials of the case. After doing this, I was left wondering what exactly the Southwest case contributes to the BATNA article. The story is really very simple: TPA broke off negotiations, thinking that it could get better terms. When TranStar ceased operations, TPA pilots were left with nothing. The rest of the detail about the seniority list, the pay disparities, the fences, etc. is all very interesting as part of the story of Southwest/TranStar, but really quite irrelevant to BATNA.
That is why I would propose to remove this section from the article. --Macrakis (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retitled the last section from "A more complex example" to "A more complex example - Misapplied BATNA" after another editor restored it to its original state. Hopefully this will make the section more palatable to Macrakis, who thought it might be irrelevant. The car-buying example highlights how the concept of BATNA could be properly used; the complex exampe highlights the other extreme.USNPilot (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several serious problems with this section:
  • It has no sources. Unless sources are found which characterize the TPA situation as an example of BATNA tactics, this is original research and is not acceptable under Wikipedia policy.
  • It editorializes: "It is easy to overestimate BATNA"; "Unfortunately the mistakes made by the TPA Board of Directors are not unique." "The uncertainty of those risks can lead to outcomes that are surprising and devastating." Under Wikipedia policies, this is called editorializing and is not allowed.
  • It doesn't add any useful additional information about BATNA. It was indeed a long and painful negotiation, but the BATNA element is very simple: TPA thought that they were better off not cooperating with SWAPA, and they were wrong.
  • It smells of WP:COATRACK -- that is, BATNA is being used as an excuse to talk about the TPA/SWAPA story. This interpretation is given credence by the fact that the editor who added it (User:DMeir) has not contributed to any other articles on Wikipedia except this one and TranStar Airlines (where he added a reference to this article).
  • It includes far too much irrelevant detail. Even if one accepts that this is a useful example of BATNA gone wrong, why does it matter that TransStar was originally called Muse, or that it was financed by Harold Simmons, or that Golich wrote a letter to Kelleher asking for assistance after TranStar failed?
This section needs to be removed. --Macrakis (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also troubled that several of those contributing to this article appear to be single-issue editors, some of them apparently parties to a current, related negotiation. (See USNPilot's allusion to "the current negotiation" -- whatever that is.) I suggest that editors review our conflict of interest rules. --Macrakis (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stratovelo mentions "the current negotiation" (presumably Southwest/Air Tran). None of Stratovelo, USNPilot, or DMeir have contributed to any other topic in 2+ years. --Macrakis (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something I immediately noticed about the section is the lack of sources. The section is also too long and detailed, especially w/ regards to the rest of the article. To be honest, this reads like something from a professor's example or a student's short essay. Before any changes though, I'd like to see responses to the concerns raised from either DMeir or USNPilot. Ravensfire (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something else to note - this section really looks like a WP:COATRACK, with the focus not on BATNA, but on the specifics of the dispute. Maybe 3-4 lines in that entire section relate to BATNA. Ravensfire (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments

[edit]

USNPilot and DMeir believe that the section "A more complex example - Misapplied BATNA" should be kept; they also appear to have WP:COI issues. Macrakis (who has nothing to do with the airline industry or with labor negotiations) believes it should be removed for reasons stated above. Ravensfire (who joined the discussion from a DRN request by Macrakis) believes better sources should be found and it should be shortened. It would be nice to have some external review. --Macrakis (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly, hoping to avoid an edit war or at least have enough ammo to quickly hammer the two SPA's if they do decide to EW the keep the section. It's a junk section, but was hoping maybe, somehow, the SPA's would actually try to come up with something to justify it. Ravensfire (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a "junk section". Too bad that it is being disruptively deleted for political motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMeir (talk • contribs) 07:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DMeir, guessing at the motives of other editors is not productive (even if you were right, which you aren't) and discouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. I think you need to learn more about Wikipedia's goals and procedures. I've responded in more detail on your Talk page. --Macrakis (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Best alternative to a negotiated agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/uploadedFiles/parcc/cmc/Interested-Based%20Negotiation%20NK.pdf. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sam Sailor 13:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Best_alternative_to_a_negotiated_agreement&oldid=1198898400"