The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
New statement 1 (and reference source cited with quote):In 1970, the 1953 renunciation of reparation rights was confirmed by the Polish Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Józef Winiewicz during the course of the negotiations leading to the normalization treaty of November 1970.[1]Old statement 1:In 1970, in concluding the Warsaw Treaty with West Germany, the Polish government confirmed the renunciation of 1953.New statement 2 (and reference source cited with quote):In response to the resolution, on 19 October 2004 the Polish Council of Ministers put out a statement saying: "The declaration of 23 August 1953 was adopted in accordance with the constitutional order of the time, in compliance with international law laid down in the UN Charter."[2]Old statement 2:In response to this resolution, the Polish government re-affirmed the 1953 renouncement.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Talk page discussion.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
Confirm that the statements proposed are reasonably accurate and reflect what the cited sources say, and that the provide more details than the old statements, which JeanClaudeN1 favors. When covering a disputed and controversial matter such additional details are very relevant and simply arguing for the simpler text makes for a potential POV-push.
E-960's summary of dispute
The Poland section needs to include detail and context that's backed up by the WP:BESTSOURCES available. If a news web-site generically states that the "Polish government" said this or that, but a book written on the very subject provides more details and says that the Council of Ministers or the Foreign Minister said this or that, on such a date during such an event, this should be included in the section text, and not removed or omitted in favor of an imprecise statement that lacks full context. This is a complicated and nuanced topic and because under international law certain actions are legally biding and others are not, those details are of great importance.
Also, as I mentioned before, the Poland section originally contained only what amounted to the German government's point of view (as evident here: [1]), it did not mention that a Diplomatic Note was never officially submitted by the Polish authorities to any of the German governments (East or West), formally notifying them of Poland's intent to renounce reparation rights, or that various Polish government branches in the past made contradictory statements on the issue of reparation rights and took different positions on the legality of the original 1953 political declaration. These and others are all highly relevant details that need to be included in the Poland section and not omitted. --E-960 (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
JeanClaudeN1's summary of dispute
Dead Mary's summary of dispute
I would like to state, that I am not even part of the actual dispute raised here and discussed on the WWII Reparation page. The dispute is about the topic of diplomatic exchanges between Germany and Poland regarding whether Germany should pay additional reparations. The only thing I was doing was adding a completely separate section about payments Germany actually did to Poland. The sections contains a couple of very basic statements such as "in 1972 Germany paid 100 million to...." etc. E-960 removed this section 3 times without giving a proper reason at all, just stating its "POV". Dead Mary (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
This is completely unnecessary at this point. What I need to better understand is exactly what you would like to see as the outcome of this mediation. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Goldsztajn's summary of dispute
World War II reparations discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note I am willing to mediate this dispute, however- there are several other editors who have been involved with this discussion. They need to be added to this DRN and invited to participate as well (Though they are not required. As long as we have both "sides" represented we can have a discussion.). Also- there are accusations of conduct violations in this filing. We do not handle those at all. Please remove (strike-out) those accusations and re-do your summary stating plainly what content the disagreement is about. If those things are done, I will open this dispute and we can proceed. Nightenbelle (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
^Władysłav, Czapliński. (2007). "Polish Legal Positions with Regards to Post-Potsdam Germany in light of International Law: Aggression - Territory - Citizenship". In Góralski, Witold M. (ed.). Poland-Germany 1945-2007: From Confrontation to Cooperation and Partnership in Europe : Studies and Documents. Polish Institute of International Affairs / Ministry of Foreign Affairs. pp. 49–50. ISBN978-83-89607-32-4. The renunciation of such claims was confirmed by the Polish deputy minister of foreign affairs, J. Winiewicz, during the course of the negotiations leading to the normalization treaty of November 1970.
^ abKrzysztof Ruchniewicz (26 October 2017). "Die verspätete Rechnung. Zur polnischen Diskussion über Reparationszahlungen aus Deutschland". Zeitgeschichte online. Leibniz-Zentrum für Zeithistorische Forschung. Archived from the original on 18 January 2022. On 19 October 2004, the Polish Council of Ministers issued a statement clarifying: "The Government of the Republic of Poland recognises as obligatory the declaration of the Government of the People's Republic of Poland on 19 October to abandon Polish reparations payments (...). The Declaration of 23 August 1953 was adopted in accordance with the constitutional order of the time, in compliance with international law laid down in the UN Charter.
^ abFeldman, Lily Gardner (2 August 2012). Germany's Foreign Policy of Reconciliation: From Enmity to Amity. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 213. ISBN978-1-4422-1710-2. The fall 2004 Sejm call for war reparations elicted firm opposition from the two governments. Polish foreign minister Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz labelled the resolution "unreasonable" and Germany's foreign ministry "reject[ed] all demands concerning compensation." The Polish government shared the German government's view that Poland had renounced reparations claims in a 1953 agreement with the GDR that was repeated vis-a-vis West Germany at the time of the 1970 Treaty.
^Hailbronner, Kay. "Legal Aspects of the Unification of the Two German States". European Journal of International Law. 2 (1). Oxford University Press: 32. When the Warsaw Treaty was signed, Poland and the Soviet Union had waived all claims for reparations against Germany as a whole by a declaration of August 23, 1953. This waiver was based upon the agreement at the Potsdam Conference that Polish claims for reparations were to be satisfied by the Soviet share for reparation payments. The declaration by the Polish Government stated that Germany had already paid substantial reparations and that the Polish Government therefore renounced all claims, in order to contribute to a peaceful solution of the German question. The waiver was explicitly confirmed in the negotiations between the two states on the Warsaw Treaty.
^Władysłav, Czapliński. (2007). "Polish Legal Positions with Regards to Post-Potsdam Germany in light of International Law: Aggression - Territory - Citizenship". In Góralski, Witold M. (ed.). Poland-Germany 1945-2007: From Confrontation to Cooperation and Partnership in Europe : Studies and Documents. Polish Institute of International Affairs / Ministry of Foreign Affairs. pp. 49–50. ISBN978-83-89607-32-4. It seems that even if the binding force of the 1953 declaration were to be questioned, it would be difficult to support the thesis that Poland has a rightful claim to reparations from Germany. The renunciation of such claims was confirmed by the Polish deputy minister of foreign affairs, J. Winiewicz, during the course of the negotiations leading to the normalization treaty of November 1970.
^Hofhansel, Claus (2005). Multilateralism, German Foreign Policy and Central Europe. Routledge Advances in European Politics. Routledge. p. 56. ISBN0-203-79929-1. To achieve clarification on this point, the West German government asked for a confirmation of Poland's 1953 renunciation of reparations claims, which the Polish government granted in 1970 before signing the Warsaw Treaty in December 1970.
^Mateusz Piątkowski (9 September 2022). "The legal questions behind Poland's claim for war reparations from Germany". notesfrompoland.com. In 1970, Poland and West Germany normalised their relationship in the Treaty of Warsaw. The Polish government confirmed the renouncement of reparations, while West Germany confirmed the Polish western border.
^Fischer, Malte. "Der Zwei-plus-Vier-Vertrag und die reparationsberechtigten Drittstaaten"(PDF). Heidelberg Journal of International Law (HJIL). 78. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law: 1036. The Polish government rejected this because of the lack of a legal basis in view of the 1953 waiver of reparations, so as not to strain Polish-German relations.
^Mateusz Piątkowski (9 September 2022). "The legal questions behind Poland's claim for war reparations from Germany". notesfrompoland.com. In 2004 the Polish government, as a part of a political deal with Germany, confirmed the renouncement made in 1953. This was done after German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder stated in Warsaw that Germany would not pursue the claims of private persons whose property was expropriated after 1945 when Poland received former German lands.
Misleading again. As can be seen, your comment was in response to a comment by Goldsztajn about the need to differentiate between current debates and the historical policies of the governments. You didn't make a comment in the RfC section. JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 01:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Summary of the situation:
The interpretation offered by JeanClaudeN1 incorrectly illustrate the situation of reparations to Poland as solved, (which is a view of the German government) without a proper representation of the view put forward by the Polish side. Those facts are being repeatedly disregarded and removed. - GizzyCatBella🍁21:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment I was not notified of this discussion. I've not made a single edit to the article, although a text I proposed was agreed to by E-960 and added to the article, albeit without waiting for any other comment in the RfC. To my interpretation, E-960 appears to be trying to represent the position of the current Polish government on German reparations as the only position to be presented in the article. I have no problem with the inclusion in the article of material which indicates that the present Polish government is contesting the basis of whether or not Germany should pay reparations. However, for somewhat more than 50 years (from 1953 onwards), this was not the position of the Polish government; all sourcing confirms this. However, this appears to be E-960's area of contention - that it was not actually the Polish government's position, that Poland never actually renounced reparations, that treaty texts do not contain statements of renunciation etc. AFAICS GizzyCatBella's point (Germany's view, solved, v. Poland's view, not solved) is not contested by any editor with regard to the current situation; nor is any editor seeking to exclude material with regard to that. The point is that the position of Poland's government has changed. I'd ask editors to consider the following: Do the preponderance of reliable, high quality, independent sources indicate that the postion of the Polish government from 1953 was a renunciation of further reparations claims against Germany? Yes. Do the preponderance of reliable, high quality, independent sources indicate that starting from around the beginning of the 21st Century, some mainstream viewpoints in Poland emerged (although not the government of that time) contesting the basis of the renunciation of reparations claims against Germany? Yes. Do the preponderance of reliable, high quality, independent sources indicate that the present Polish government has rejected the basis for previous renunciations and made claims for reparations against Germany? Yes. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment In my view, E-960 and GizzyCatBella need to understand that Wikipedia isn't about whose POV is better represented in an article, but what reliable secondary sources say about the subject. And the sources are very clear on the position of the previous Polish governments (as already pointed out by Goldsztajn [8]). JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
CommentNightenbelle, both JeanClaudeN1 and Goldsztajn both now argue that I'm only trying to present a view of the "Polish government on German reparations as the only position to be presented in the article" however a simple look back at the old version(s) of the Poland section will clearly show that ONLY the German position was presented, as clearly visible in this link to an earlier version of the article: [9]. In fact, the text was so one sided that the section made it look like before 2022 all Polish government branches unanimously agreed to the waiving of reparations, and that no legal issues were present. I ask that you compare that old text with the current frozen version, which has a lot more detail and nuance, and that the claims made by JeanClaudeN1 and Goldsztajn are unfounded and mask an effort to Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling and Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Details are key to this issue as they are multiple interoperation of the facts by historians. --E-960 (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Also, on the talk page I offered to drop the RfC if user JeanClaudeN1 stopped removing the more detailed statements I added and the reliable sources I used to back up the text. However, as still evident on the talk page user JeanClaudeN1 keeps removing them. Here is an example, as user GizzyCatBella objected to JeanClaudeN1's actions as he keeps removing the text related to the fact that Poland never provided a diplomatic note to East Germany (or West Germany for that matter) officially informing the German side of its intention to wave reparation rights: Talk:World War II reparations#Diplomatic note. --E-960 (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Warning
Okay- ya'll can either stop this or I can close this dispute. This is not what we do over here. So let me repeat what needs to happen before we start mediation.
1. Add the names of every involved editor and put an invitation on their talk pages.
2. Every editor- IN THEIR OWN SECTION ABOVE states what they think the issue is with the CONTENT you want changed. I don't need to know every detail, I don't want an analysis of sources- I just want to know what you think is wrong with the current state of the article. Do not comment on other editors or their summaries at this time focus on content ONLY
3. Do not talk to each other- talk to me.
4. Do not assume I will take anyone's words at face value. The reason ya'll are here is because you cannot see eye to eye on your own. My process for mediating is to first- read the entire talk page of the article in question. Second- read the section of the article (or entire article if its short enough) that ya'll are arguing about. Third- read each and every source in question or involved. Fourth- do a little review of any RS noticeboard conversation on any debated sources if possible. If not- do some research to see if I can determine reliability. And Finally, Take what everyone has said here and try to determine each person's ideal form of the article and the problem they have with the other people.
So- I take hours to prep for these to make sure I have a well rounded, but unbiased, overview of the situation. You do not need to argue with eachother to convince me who to believe and who not to. I believe all of you and none of you. I'm Schrödinger's mediator. And- I do not care what the final outcome is- meaning- I have no vested interest in the content of said article (If I did- I would recuse myself). The only time I will show "favoritism" towards an editor is if they are new and I am giving them some grace while they learn rules and expected behavior- but even then, there is a limit.
All of this to say- stop commenting on each other and focus on the article. We all want it to be the best possible article, so lets work together to figure out what that looks like. This mediation is not currently open. There should be no discussion in this section at this time. Until all involved parties are listed above- we are waiting on that. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer statement 2
Now that we have everyone listed- please each fill out your section above with what your ideal outcome to this disagreement is. Thank youNightenbelle (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer statement 3
I have asked that editors fill out their section stating what they hope for as the ideal outcome. Its been more than 2 days and so far 1 editor has done that. We need at least 2 sides to have a discussion. So if another side is not explained in the next 24 hours, I will be closing this as failed. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
First- he was not threatening to block you- he was advising you that you cannot use depreciated sources. I realize you don't like that answer and think you have good reasons for using the daily mail- but you'll have to get that policy changed before you can use the source. If a source has been depreciated on WP- you cannot use it. Period- end of story. No matter how good your reasoning is, no matter how special you think the circumstances are- you can't use it. Second- You really need to shorten your statements on the article talk page- no one wants to read a wall of words. Third- please use traditional paragraph formating- "/" slashes are distracting and make your paragraph confusing. Finally- there has not been nearly enough discussion to come here yet. There have been 3 comments other than the walls of words you have added. It needs more of a good faith effort than that. Please listen to the very solid advice you have been given, review WP:RS and WP:SYNTH and maybe find another page to work on. If, after reviewing those two pages, you continue the discussion with concise comments and engage other editors and stop trying to use depreciated sources and then can't reach a compromise- you are welcome to re-open a request here. However, if you keep editing as you have been, I can give you certainty you will be blocked- if not by David Gerard, then by another admin. Nightenbelle (talk) 03:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
October 18 edition, corrected and reuploaded on October 28, deleted by David Gerard-JaggedHamster. Discussed the problem, they gave no further answers. What was left implies that Carradine committed suicide and nothing happened after June 4, 2009. That's misleading and ignores reality./
The sources of the former version, from "Two autopsies" to "potentially deadly" were broken links, tabloids, MSM using gossip as sources. I researched for about a year, and found RS accounting for the official investigation and stating it didn't release a final report. I edited according to the two divergent storylines and explained the intention on the Talk page./
I dispute the reasons given for the deletion. Mentioning DEPS isn't the same than using them to support content, even less when MSM used them as their sources, often quoting them directly. It isn't an "essay" that belongs in a blog, but quoting who said what and when. The length of text and quotes matches the subject's complexity, and prevents my bias from interpreting testimonies; it appears disproportionate because the biography is short and lacks details. If, according to Gerard, my "approach is bad and needs to be reverted" and "multiple" editors agreed with him, the October 17 version should be up now, that's not the case. He said it was all "bad," nobody said it was all "wrong;" he even deleted quotes from "Early life" RS because he found them "excessive." Three other editors objected the few citations to DEPS and one tagged; very well, UNRELS were discussed: ABC, NBC, etc. Gerard is an administrator and threatened with blocking me; he questioned my competence. I am a librarian and experienced bibliographic researcher; I realized MSM used sources he calls "trash," he didn't. User_talk:David_Gerard#Kyiv_Post/
JaggedHamster was polite, and I considered his suggestions. I need the certainty I won't be blocked by Gerard if I keep editing; the section cannot be left as it is now, and there is more material to add.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
If I did "original research," tag it, and let's discuss./
I could delete NatEnq and DM, the MSM situation remains the same./
I could leave the Investigation only, no UNRELS there. Problem: that's not what Google gives. Ignoring what media publishes up to this day using gossip sources ignores reality./
I could just record all the RS chronologically with no mention or citation of the UNRELS the MSM used, and leave it for the users to figure out why they contradict each other. Is that acceptable?
Summary of dispute by David Gerard
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Summary of dispute by JaggedHamster
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
David Carradine discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
There is a game called Star Control there is a dispute as to whether the game's home page should be added to external links. There are 4 editors involved. 2 think the home page should be added. 1 thinks it is WP:PROMO and 1 thinks external links should be avoided.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
We want to know whether the game's home page should be added to external links or whether doing so is off-topic/promotional.
The for adding argument is that the external link is to the official page for the game and the exclusive publisher of the game and this is standard on Wikipedia.
The opposing argument seems to revolve around the publisher of the game not having developed the original game but rather acquired the trademarks/publishing rights to the game from Atari but not the copyright.
Summary of dispute by Jorahm
I am trying assume WP:GOODFAITH after an editor with 30 edits broke their 6 year hiatus to start an edit war. Previously the editor's only contributions were associated with a software company called Stardock and owner Brad Wardell. Now they are trying to add stardock.com to a 1990 game that Stardock had nothing to do with.
Star Control was developed by Toys for Bob and published by Accolade in 1990. This article is a summary of verifiable knowledge from reliable secondary sources. The article is easy to read and makes it clear that Stardock was not involved.
There is confusion because in 2018 Stardock did start a new series called Star Control Origins when they bought the "Star Control" trademark in a sequence of bankruptcies (Accolade to Infogrames to Atari). But Stardock did not buy the copyright in the original games which have been owned by the original developers since the 1990s.[10] Stardock owns the trademark; the words "Star Control" as a mark in trade.
There was a pointless lawsuit that ended in 2019 the same way it started: Toys for Bob still own the original games and Stardock owns the name "Star Control", which Stardock used for their "Origins" series.[11] That fact is verified in reliable secondary sources. Those are the basis of Wikipedia articles. Not company sites or press releases.
To avoid WP:PROMO the article also left out the Toys for Bob site; the original Star Control as covered by the true and verifiable developers.[12] Even as the developer you can see they are not linked here. Reliable facts about the 1990 game can only logically come from peer reviewed print sources from the early 90s. The world wide web came much later.
In short, stardock.com has no informational value other than promo and I am stunned to see someone behave so relentlessly to add it. Jorahm (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I have taken your comment in consideration. If I understand your POV, you think the link must not be added as it has no informational value, just promotional content. Well, I am here to come to a decision Jorahm ! Craffael.09 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by EggsHam
The Star Control IP was acquired by Stardock about a decade ago from Atari who had acquired it from Accolade. Stardock owns the trademark to the series and the copyright in Star Control 3 and has whatever rights Accolade, the original publisher, had in Star Control 1 and 2.
Recently an editor re-added the game's home page, www.starcontrol.com to the wiki's external link list. This link was on the wiki page for years until a couple of editors decided to begin purging the page of any mention of Stardock despite the fact that Stardock is the publisher of the entire series and has both copyright and trademark rights and has continued the series with a new title.
Some of the copyrights in Star Control 1 and 2 are owned by Paul Reiche which one editor seems to think precludes mention of the game's current publisher and IP holder.
Having the topic's home page on the wiki is typical even when the home page operator has no IP rights in it. See The Hobbit where the home page goes to Harper-Collins and not the Tolkien estate.
The current home page for Star Control is StarControl.com where it is sold and supported and discussed. They have the same rights in the game as Accolade had. The game's official home page should be restored to the article page.
I have taken into account your comment. If I understand you POV, you think the link must be added for the reason that it is typical on WP to have that kind of link on a topic's homepage and that Stardock ownsthe rights to SC. Well, I am here to come to a consensu EggsHam ! Craffael.09 (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Thought this might have died down last time I checked. The status quo has had a consensus for a while and has been fine. I don't really see the value of this external link, let alone why it would be so important for such a big dispute. But if I'm being generous, I don't see the value of many external links. It might make sense for games that had a website on launch. But it makes no sense for a such an old game.
If you scratch hard enough, I agree that Stardock only owns Origins, and the closest we have to an official website is from the original developer Toys for Bob. Or maybe star-control.com which has been consistently running for 20 years. But even if I'm being generous, I'm not sure any of these options add anything. The practice of external links is so inconsistent that many game articles even include links to pirated games -- which I think this article does too. It's not good. Sometimes a long-running fan site has something to say. But even then, if a link had some information of value, wouldn't a third party source cover it?
Again, I'd state the principles. Reliable third party sources. No primary or self published material, which ties into WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Not every page needs external links, especially here where there's nothing of informative value. (The developer blog used to have some great "making of" images, but they're gone now.) Shooterwalker (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I have taken your comment in consideration. If I understand your POV, you think that the link is not particularly necessary because of the fact that Stardock was not the dev and only owns the rights and the link is of no informtional value. Well, I am here to come to a conclusion Shooterwalker ! Craffael.09 (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I am the DRN volunteer that will take this matter in hands. I want everyone to know that my objective is to arrive at a consensus in the calmest of manners possible so I will take a neutral point of view. The final verdict might not satisfy everyone (but let's hope it does :) but you will have to accept it. In the meantime, let's dig in ! (Feel free to ask questions or comment on this discussion area or on my talk pafe :) Craffael.09 (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Zeroth statement by moderator on Star Control
It appears that the filing editor and one other editor have made statements. I am willing to open this dispute for moderated discussion with two editors if they are ready to participate. If the other at least two editors reply, they may also participate.
Please read the ground rules, which are the usual rules for discussion here. I will repeat some of the rules, but if I do not repeat a rule, it is still a rule. Do not edit the article while moderated discussion is in progress. Be civil and concise. Overly long statements do not clarify the issues. Comment on content, not on contributors. That is, don't talk about the other editors, but about the article. The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article. Address your comments to the moderator, and to the community, who is represented by the moderator. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the section marked for the purpose (and it may be ignored or read there). I expect each editor to respond to my questions and requests for statements within 48 hours. If you know that you will not be able to participate in discussion for more than 48 hours, please let me know, and I may pause the discussion.
I have added my summary. I don't do much on Wikipedia and my interest is mainly in old (very old) games and computers. I don't think I can add much to the discussion that hasn't already been said. EggsHam (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
There is no vitriol directed at ERegion. After starting this mediation ERegion went back to the other thread to accuse me of "WP:RGW". I responded by drawing attention his highly specific contribution history around Stardock and Brad Wardell. I agree to mediation and believe that the moderator can help everyone focus on content based on reliable secondary sources. Jorahm (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Zeroth statements by editors on Star Control
No official link exists for many articles, especially historic properties from before the world wide web, or entities that have been dissolved. One thing that would keep the discussion on track is to focus on reliable secondary sources. The lawsuit was well documented by WP:NEUTRAL sources and it's counter productive to make assertions based on WP:OR, WP:SELFPUB, or WP:PROMO.
It's flat out incorrect to say that anyone has been trying to "purge any mention of Stardock". The article mentions Stardock several times and their trademark acquisition is reported factually based on reliable secondary sources. It rightfully avoids WP:OR and WP:NPOV.
It's also flat out incorrect to say that Stardock bought the "publishing rights" from Accolade / Infogrames / Atari. The right to distribute a copyrighted work belongs to the Copyright holder[13] (summarized at Publishing#Legal_issues). Secondly Atari never controlled the right to distribute the games.[14](Scroll down to "who can sell the games?") Lastly if Accolade, Infogrames, or Atari controlled the right to publish the copyrighted games, they would have sued the developers for publishing the Copyrighted games by themselves.[15] Of course it was the Copyright holder's right to publish their own material.
Yes Stardock bought the Trademark but that does not retroactively give them a role in the original game from 1990. It should be obvious but this is why we have reliable secondary sources to keep WP:FRINGE theories out. Jorahm (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Please read the rules again. Comment on content, not contributors. When I said not to engage in back-and-forth discussion, except in the space where it can be ignored, I meant not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. Be civil and concise.
The purpose of this discussion is to improve the article, so we need to clarify exactly what the area or areas of disagreement are. Are there any questions other than whether to provide a link to the official web site of the vendor who has acquired the game? Please answer in one sentence. If there are any other issues, please provide a one-paragraph statement as to what you either want changed in the article, or what you want kept the same that another editor wants changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
First statements by editors on Star Control
The goal of editing the article should be to improve its quality. The highest quality articles have external links to their official webpages. For example, Age of Empires has been featured on Wikipedia as a good article. The external link goes to the publisher's website called AgeOfEmpires.com.
Adding the official webpage would improve the article's quality as can be seen by other high-quality articles which have an external link to an official website. StarControl.com is self-evidently the official site for the game. The game is actively sold there and third-party sites including Steam and GOG already link to this site as the game's homepage. The page also links to its own Wiki for Star Control 1, 2, 3, origins, to provide researchers and others interested with further reading on the topic as well as the ability to discuss the game on the site's forums. Therefore, having the game's homepage as an external link does not fall under WP:PROMO.
As editors it is not up to us to decide what the official site for a game is. That is a matter for the IP holders (copyright, trademark, etc.) who have self-evidently decided that StarControl.com is the game's home page. Our purpose is to improve the article and the highest quality articles link to the article subject's official site.
Thanks to the mediator. The question: Are there any questions other than whether to provide a link to the official web site of the vendor who has acquired the game? Stardock did not acquire the game, only the name. As far as I can tell, there are no other issues, which might limit our ability to come up with compromises. But I'll do my best to be open. The sources establish that Stardock started a new series and don't own the original series. So it's not self evident that their website is the official site for anything other than the Origins series/universe. This article is different from most typical games because the intellectual property has been split, with the games owned by Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford, and only the name owned by Stardock. I reiterate what I said above that this would be easier if we could agree to use reliable third party sources. Fortunately we can avoid the frequent misuse of unreliable sources by looking at the list of reliable third party sources at WP:GAMESOURCES. This would avoid issues with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V. Nothing on Wikipedia is self-evident. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
From Editor: EggsHam
Are there any questions other than whether to provide a link to the official web site of the vendor who has acquired the game? No.
There was a lawsuit over the IP rights over the game and whether Stardock had the right to sell the first 3 games. The result of that lawsuit was that Stardock owns the trademark to the series, the copyright to Star Control 3, is the exclusive publisher of all the games in the series, is listed as the publisher of the all the games by reliable third party sources WP:RS such as Steam, their new entry in the series has characters from Star Control 1 in it and StarControl.com recently announced that Star Control IV is in preproduction.
If article quality matters, then the 1990s game, Planetscape: Torment, a Featured Article, has an external link to the official webpage run by companies that had nothing to do with the original game but have secured the necessary rights to be the exclusive publisher of the game should be used as a guide.
By this criteria, StarControl.com is the game's home page and improving the article's quality suggests adding it to the external links. EggsHam (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Second statement by moderator on Star Control
I asked the editors whether there were any other issues besides whether to include a link to the official web site. Two editors made non-concise statements as to why there should be a link to the web site in question. That was not the question that I had asked, but it provides useful information. One editor said in an opening statement that there should not be a link. One editor has said that there are no other issues. I am again asking the other editors whether there are any other issues.
If there are no other issues than whether to include a link to the web site of the vendor, then it is time to resolve the issue by RFC, because it is not easy to find a compromise between yes and no. So I will ask each editor to provide a one-paragraph statement as to why or why not to link. One of the reasons for yes and for no will be included with the RFC. So be concise, because the purpose of your statement is to persuade other editors who may want to participate briefly in the RFC.
Any editor may also provide a concise statement as to why there should not be an RFC, or why there should be an RFC. However, it appears that this dispute will be resolved by an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Second statements by editors on Star Control
I think that an RFC is a waste of time for something that's this small, and most editors would glaze over their eyes at the legal mess. At least, we should first start with a restatement of basic policies, and see where that leads us. I don't think it's too much to ask for reliable third-party sources, and not statements from forum posts or self-published websites. Allow the article to summarize those reliable third party sources, including the final IP split. Anything not attributed to reliable third party sources is either too unreliable, too biased, or too insignificant.
Last year, three of the involved editors (Eggsham, Jorham, and myself) were able to address to reach a stable and neutral version in the body of the article.
I made some copyedits for concision and to support consensus.[19]
I know that we aren't supposed to comment on the other editors, because this risks that editors respond with WP:PERSONALATTACKS instead of focusing on content. But this is an example of three of the involved editors collaborating and arriving at a WP:NPOV stable version. Consensus is possible when we simply summarize what reliable third party sources have to say about the subject. Even if our efforts fail, it would be hugely helpful if the moderator can help us agree on basic Wikipedia policies. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure how much my first comment addressed this but the real question is: does a game from 1990 even have an official home page, when its main history is from before the web?
Even if the answer to that question is yes, the strongest case is that game's official site has been the original developer Toys For Bob[20] since they arrived on the web.[21][22] This is how we treat Perfect Dark, a featured article about a game with a similar broken IP history. The article links to an archived version of the website before it was abandoned.
I also will agree that this discussion gets conflated by relying on unreliable information from primary sources. The moderator has helped a lot to keep this conversation focused and one of the most helpful things that they could do is help us focus our discussion on what is established in reliable secondary sources. I believe that will help us come to a consensus more quickly than an RFC. Jorahm (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Most featured[23] articles on video games, including older games such as Planetscape: Torment have links to the official website even when the current publisher was not involved in the original release. The official website for Star Control is StarControl.com. We know this because the game is still actively published and sold on third-party stores such as Steam[24] and GOG[25] with StarControl.com recognized as the publisher's site. Most works that are still published that came out before there was an Internet have links to the current publisher's official site including The Hobbit where the official page has no copyright or trademark rights to the book, just the publishing rights. The official Star Control website includes links to forums, wikis and news on new games in the series. There are already external links to largely abandoned fan sites and one to the original developer's current company page. Adding a link to the official website would improve the article's quality and make it conform with the rest of Wikipedia. EggsHam (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Third statement by moderator on Star Control
When the moderator says to be civil and concise, the moderator means to be civil and concise. When the moderator says to provide a one-paragraph statement, that does not mean that three paragraphs are three times better.
An editor asks the moderator to restate basic policies, and says that the article should reflect what reliable third-party sources say. The basic policies are verifiability and neutral point of view. The content guideline that is most directly applicable is External Links. That guideline summarizes itself as
No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense.
Each editor may make a one-paragraph statement as to why the inclusion of the external link is supported by common sense or is not supported by common sense.
One editor says: I think that an RFC is a waste of time for something that's this small. If one thinks that the issue is small, then it should not be necessary to ignore the moderator's instructions to be concise.
The discussion of the need for reliable third-party sources is correct, but it is not clear what it has to do with the question of a link to a web site. So I will again ask the editors whether there are any article content issues other than the external link. Please make a statement of not more than one paragraph as to whether there are any other content issues, and what they are.
Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Third statements by editors on Star Control
There are a number of problems with the Star Control article that have been discussed on its talk page where improvements are stymied by tenacious editors[26]. I don't have enough interest in the article to wade into that and am only here because adding the vendor's official website was so clear cut that I wasn't willing, as others have with other attempts to improve the article, to walk away due to the aforementioned tenacity. Here is the requested paragraph:
It is standard practice on Wikipedia to create an external link to the publisher's dedicated website for the article's subject. If Accolade was still around, their webpage would be listed. Stardock acquired the rights Accolade had to the Star Control series (trademarks and copyrights)[27]. There was a dispute over whether those rights included the right to publish the original series[28] with the result being Stardock does have those rights[29]. Therefore, just as common sense says we would have an external link to Accolade's website for Star Control we should have an external link to StarControl.com.(ERegion (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC))
After reviewing every aspect of the conflict, I now fully understand the conflict. I am proposing a 1st consensus. If there is a need for a second one due to the response or that it just needs a bit more time, I will propose one. Craffael.09 (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
First consensus and response
I think that the link to Stardock must be added for the simple reason that Stardock is the actual rights-holding enterprise, and following the examples of other similar scenarios, the link must be added.
This is a misunderstanding of the rights and contradicts the reliable sources. As stated above the copyrights to the original games are owned by Paul Reiche and Fred Ford[30] who are also the founders of studio Toys for Bob. This is why toysforbob.com has been the home for the 1990 game Star Control since it arrived be on the web in the early 2000s.[31][32][33] Stardock only owns the complete rights to Star Control: Origins,[34] and the use of the name "Star Control". This is verified in several reliable secondary sources[35][36] and was later agreed to by both parties after a confusing lawsuit.[37] The most similar scenario for other dissolved websites for old games comes from situations like Perfect Dark that links to its historical site. The corresponding historical link for Star Control would be the original Toys for Bob site.[[38] If we are being thorough we should also add the new spinoff studio's website from Reiche/Ford as they do a better job documenting the history of Star Control and not just a promotional blurb.[39] We should also consider other sites devoted to the original series such as the reddit[40] and twitter,[41] while the stardock.com would be added to Star Control: Origins. Speaking for myself I suspect that the reason that no one added these links was that it wasn't worth the dispute and to strive for compromise. Jorahm (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
The original games are not "owned" by Paul Reiche and Fred Ford. Your link is to a copyright of Star Control 2 not 1 or 3. Stardock owns the copyright to Star Control 3[42]. They acquired the rights Accolade, the original publisher had. There was a lawsuit over whether this was the case with the final result being that they have those rights (trademark, copyrights and publishing rights). Even if they did "own" the games, common sense shows they must have decided that the home page is StarControl.com because that is the website that publishes, supports and provides additional information on the subject including its own Wiki[43]. There is already a link to Paul Reiche and Fred Ford's web page in the external links. I have no objection in adding a Toys for Bob link to the article also. As @Craffael.09 said, Stardock is the actual rights-holding enterprise unless you are going to argue they are somehow pirating the game.
The third party sources explicitly say that the first Star Control game is owned by the original developers,[44] which is better that a primary source. The Stardock CEO even states "The copyright to Star Control 1/2 is owned by Paul Rieche directly". Are you honestly trying to tell me that Stardock owns the rights to the first game? There's a consensus that they purchased the Trademark more recently, but this misleading stuff needs to stop. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Here you correctly state that the first Star Control game is owned by Paul Reiche. However, you and @Jorahm have repeatedly stated that Paul Reiche and Fred Ford own the copyrights to the original games (plural) including further down in this discussion which is not supported by reliable third-party sources. It is very misleading to those new to the subject to keep switching between those two claims.EggsHam (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Star Control 3 is owned by Stardock. Star Control 1&2 are owned by Paul Reiche. I have corrected you several times over the years and you know full well who owns each game. It's not even particularly relevant to whether an external link should be added. One of the many times this topic has come up is even mentioned by @Shooterwalker above. Please stop repeating this verifiably false claim. EggsHam (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
My first consensus still stands. I propose we take a vote. If everyone agrees, then I will file the case as resolved.
Agree. The link should be added because StarControl.com is already recognized as the home page for the series by reliable sources. EggsHam (talk) 23:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Disagree. And I need to ask if User:Craffael.09 understands what WP:CONSENSUS means, since we should be trying to find common ground, instead of voting one vision versus another. The statement that Stardock owns the rights is contradicted by the reliable third party sources found above, which show that the copyrights to the original Star Control games are owned by the original developers,[45][46] and this is even confirmed in the copyright registry as a primary source.[47] The WP:RELIABLESOURCE source policy (at WP:VENDOR) explicitly prohibits linking to vendor sites, and the WP:GAMESOURCES guidance on reliable sources discourages these types of sources because of their problems with accuracy. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Both @ERegion and I have repeatedly corrected you and @Jorahm on your misleading statement about who owns the original games. Reliable third party sources state that the copyright to Star Control 1/2 are owned by Paul Reiche and Star Control 3 is owned by Stardock. It is similarly misleading to describe StarControl.com as a WP:VENDOR. If we were to interpret the guidelines as you do, then nearly every game, book and movie article on Wikipedia would need to be edited to remove official websites. EggsHam (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Fourth statement by moderator on Star Control
We have had overly long statements by editors. We had a good-faith but misguided effort by an enthusiastic volunteer to define the solution. The policies and guidelines have been summarized. External links are not sources, so that the policies and guidelines on primary and secondary sources are not applicable. It is not necessary to discuss the history of the article unless you want something in the text of the article changed. I will ask each editor, again, to provide a one-paragraph statement as to why or why not to provide the link in question. If you want something in the text of the article changed, provide a one-paragraph statement, and we can then pursue it further. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors on Star Control
Most featured[48] articles on video games, including older games such as Planetscape: Torment have links to the official website even when the current publisher was not involved in the original release. The official website for Star Control is StarControl.com. We know this because the game is still actively published and sold on third-party stores such as Steam[49] and GOG[50] with StarControl.com recognized as the publisher's site. Most works that are still published that came out before there was an Internet have links to the current publisher's official site including The Hobbit where the official page has no copyright or trademark rights to the book, just the publishing rights. The official Star Control website includes links to forums, wikis and news on new games in the series. There are already external links to largely abandoned fan sites and one to the original developer's current company page. Adding a link to the official website would improve the article's quality and make it conform with the rest of Wikipedia. EggsHam (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
It is both standard policy and common sense to add the external link to the game's official website. It improves the quality of the article. If Accolade was still around, their webpage would be listed. Stardock acquired the rights Accolade had to the Star Control series (both in trademarks and copyrights)[51]. They also received the publishing rights. There was a dispute over whether the publishing rights were included.[52]. The result of that dispute was that Stardock has those rights[53]. Publishers often do not hold any IP rights in the works they publish. In this case, the publisher also happens to own the trademark to the game and a copyright to one of the games in the series but that is not a requirement. (ERegion (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC))
Eggsham said that "reliable third party sources state that the copyright to Star Control 1/2 are owned by Paul Reiche" and I wish we could have built a consensus around that basic fact sooner. If there is also a consensus that Stardock owns the Trademark, that at least gives us a consensus around the basic facts for this game and it is a good place to start. I also see Eregion offering "I have no objection in adding a Toys for Bob link to the article also" and "if Accolade was still around, their webpage would be listed" and these types of suggestions help us find the ground for a compromise. I think the common ground we all share is that we would like to stop revisiting this lawsuit over and over over and would like to come to an agreement if it can put a final end to the disagreement. Speaking for myself, my edits have focused on trying to report the lawsuit factually, and to avoid every related article from going down the tangent of lawsuit that happened more than 25 years after the original games (and did not really change the original IP split). My obvious preference is that links about the modern IP split are basically irrelevant to the 1990 game. But if I am envisioning a circumstance where we include a link to the Stardock site, it is if we include (primarily) the historic rights holders and (less relevant) the modern rights holders, and inform the readers in a factual way. That would be a link to Toys for Bob / Reiche / Ford as the developers, a link to Accolade as the publisher (which doesn't exist and I agree is moot), Pistol Shrimp as the copyright successor for this game, and Infogrames, Atari, and Stardock as the trademark successors for the name Star Control (which I agree only Stardock still seems to actually operate). Shorter version is it's four links: Toys for Bob, Reiche and Ford, Pistol Shrimp, and Stardock, unless further archive material can be found. I am offering this compromise only if this can be the end of it. Jorahm (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Stardock doesn't own the publishing rights, and no reliable third party sources say this. Our guidelines at WP:RS and WP:GAMESOURCES state that e-commerce sources (like Steam and GOG) have problems with accuracy and reliability. This is a bigger problem for contentious claims, and ERegion admits that the publisher is contentious at best. The right to publish belongs to the copyright holder, and we have a consensus that Stardock doesn't own the copyright to this game. That said, I see Jorahm is trying to find a good faith compromise by avoiding the contentious part. I see the proposal to include a link to every IP claimant -- both copyright and trademark, both past and present -- but am I the only editor who thinks that would transform older IPs into a WP:LINKFARM? Of the four links suggested by Jorahm, only the Pistol Shrimp webpage provides any meaningful information to readers, which is the only link that is consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental goal. Even then, information from self-published websites isn't technically reliable -- it's always better to stick with the reliable third-party sources that are linked in the reference section. This is why many featured game articles avoid self-published links altogether. Look at Pac-Man, Shadow of the Colossus, or Panzer Dragoon Saga among many examples. I can see how Jorahm's proposal strives for a WP:NPOV compromise, but I am not sure that the other editors would let it rest there. This is why I say that the most WP:NPOV solution is to drop all self-published links and focus on writing a properly-sourced article. The article already mentions these companies in the article body, in context, with reliable third party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Fifth statement by moderator on Star Control
Two editors have said that the inclusion of the external link would improve the article. One editor has said that we should focus on writing a properly-sourced article. It appears that they mean that the external link is not properly sourced because they consider it to be self-published. There seems to be agreement that the Intellectual Property situation with regard to the game is messy. By the way, referring to Intellectual Property as IP can be confusing, because in Wikipedia it usually refers to unregistered editors using Internet Protocols (IP) addresses.
So the issue appears to be whether to include the external link anyway. Since there is no rough consensus, a Request for Comments still appears to be the way to go forward. One editor has said that:
I think that an RFC is a waste of time for something that's this small, and most editors would glaze over their eyes at the legal mess.
It hasn't been small so far, with five exchanges of posts over ten days, and I will not include the legal mess in the statement of the RFC, although any editor will be able to refer to it either by linking back to it, or by describing it in the discussion section of the RFC, which other editors can ignore.
I will be composing an RFC, and will publish it in between 24 and 72 hours, unless the editors reach agreement in the meantime, or unless an editor provides me with a persuasive argument why there is a different better resolution than an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors on Star Control
I would like to see if there is any support for including all the links (Toys for Bob, Reiche and Ford, Pistol Shrimp, and Stardock) as I suggested above. I would not oppose an RFC but I expect that it will lead to no consensus which would be a return to the status quo. (Or worse it will lead to more contentious edits and more frustrating arguments.) I ask the mediator that we avoid an RFC that isn't a loaded question, or worse, contradicts the reliable secondary sources. This archived source verifies that the official site for the game is Toys for Bob, the studio founded by the creators of Star Control. Even in its archived form Gamespy is considered a reliable secondary source at WP:GAMESOURCES. Plain observation shows that Toys for Bob has been the Star Control site since the early 2000s[54] and continues to be to present day, long before Stardock purchased the name. But I think we would save a lot of acrimony if we met each other halfway. I am willing to include all the links to all the relevant parties if we can find a WP:NPOV framing and allow readers to make up their own minds. Jorahm (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Sixth statement by moderator on Star Control
An editor has proposed that we link to the four web sites that have different historical associations with the game. I thank them for offering a useful suggestion that may serve as a compromise.
I would like each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to whether they support this idea, oppose it, or are neutral. If no one opposes the idea, that will be a consensus, and I will close the discussion. If there is both support and opposition, then we will resolve the matter with an RFC. Each editor may also make a one-paragraph statement as to what the RFC should ask. Should it be about a link to the Star Dock web site, or about the four links, or should it provide multiple choices? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors on Star Control
Oppose. I would like to see comments by NPOV editors. Every time someone tries to improve the game's article the same two editors will block it and use their 2 to 1 advantage to push their narrative onto the page. There is already an external link to the blog of Paul Reiche and Fred Ford. Now we propose to add two more links to them? Accolade was the game's original publisher. On Wikipedia external pages go link to the publisher's page without having to get into a mini-novel of who owns various pieces of intellectual property. If Accolade had an archived home page for the game I'd say add that one too. Stardock is the current rights holder to the brand. Having an external link to StarControl.com for an article about Star Control where the external site is the one selling, supporting, marketing and providing additional information on the game and is the page third-parties selling the game link to as the publisher site is what we are discussing. This should be an easy call. I would be open to compromise without comments from NPOV editors but this isn't the first time this article has been in mediation from the intransigence of these two editors over minor changes to the article/template and I predict if we agree to this compromise without NPOV editor comments this article will be back in mediation in a year or two with these same two editors editing the links to remove or rephrase the link to the home page using some tortured logic like we have seen in this discussion and forcing some lone editor to go through this entire ridiculous thing again. Having comments from NPOV editors might help us avoid disputes on this article.
Neutral. Improving the quality of the article should be the guide. A quick look at the article shows a distinct decline in quality over the past few years as it has become less of an encyclopedia entry and more of a fan page for the game's lore authors. I found the talk page for the game's template very illuminating in showing how and why this happened. Improving the quality requires looking at featured articles of games that are still for sale which typically have one or possibly two external links. These links are usually to the active official website for the game, sometimes archived version of a previous official website and maybe a link to MobyGames or IMDB. I've never seen having a copyright interest in a game, book or movie being used as justification for an external link except here. Creative works often have many copyright holders and Star Control is no exception. Should we have a link to the artists of Star Control? Should we have a link to the composers of the music of Star Control whose music also is in Star Control: Origins? I have no objection to adding Toys for Bob, the recognized developer of the game but they also have their template on the page already. There's already 1 link to the "Creators of Star Control" blog in the article. Adding 2 more links to this person's websites would further reduce the quality of this article. The fan site link should probably be removed and the classic reload link, whose legality is iffy, should be removed. Adding a link that says "Official website" which goes to the official site would improve the article.
If there is a request for comment then the questions should be is Starcontrol.com the official site? Should that official site be linked? Should we continue to have an external link to the blog run by the copyright of the game's source code and game lore? Should we have links to "Pistol Shrimp" which appears to have no connection to Star Control whatsoever be added? Should Toys for Bob be added even though it is already listed in the article's template? Should the link to the "classic reloaded" page be removed? (ERegion (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC))
Support as the proposer. I would like to see an objection that does not involve personal attacks here and behind the mediator's back[55][56]. Despite the accusation of bad faith, consensus is what prevents me or anyone from going back and changing a multi-editor agreement. This is where the mediator plays a helpful role to document and assure our consensus as well as reminding all editors that WP:NOCONSENSUS defaults to the status quo. And if the RFC ends with no consensus then will all editors just drop the issue? Be careful because more opinions does not make it easier to build a consensus: 2-to-1, 1-to-2-to-1, 9-to-5, and 7-to-4-to-2 are all no consensus. If we do an RFC it will be essential to find WP:NPOV phrasing based on accepted facts supported by reliable secondary sources ("Should Star Control link to the website of the original developer, the copyright successor, or the trademark successor?") and avoid POV claims about which site is "official". I remind everyone that it is a basic legal principle that publishing rights belong to the copyright holder. There is no consensus otherwise and ERegion has said that the publishing rights were disputed but also said "There is already a link to Paul Reiche and Fred Ford's web page in the external links. I have no objection in adding a Toys for Bob link to the article also." This shows me that a simple solution is within reach instead following a path that probably won't result in a consensus. Jorahm (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Seventh statement by moderator on Star Control
One editor proposed that there should be four links: Toys for Bob (original corporate developer); Stardock (trademark successor); Pistol Shrimp (copyright successor); Reiche and Ford (original human developers). At this point, I am asking each editor who objects to any of those four groups being an external link to state in one paragraph the reason for their objection to each link. Also, if any editor has suggestions about what the RFC should ask, or any objections to an RFC, please state in one paragraph what the suggestion is, or what the objection is. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Seventh statements by editors on Star Control
Reiche and Ford are the copyright holders. They already have a link. I have no idea what Pistol Shrimp is supposed to be and there is no reference to them anywhere I could find to justify any link to them. It looks like it's just a duplicate of Reiche and Ford blog. StarControl.com should return to be listed as the official site as it was for years before one of the editors in this dispute replaced it with the link to the Reiche and Ford blog. I have no opinion on a link to Toys for Bob's website being added and would defer to RFC on whether the article is improved by having that link.EggsHam (talk) 21:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I see the potential for a compromise. My issue has been less about what to link to, and more about the WP:BATTLEGROUND approach that brought us here, and the scope creep of using the external links as a tool to "win" a split-decision lawsuit. There aren't reliable third-party sources that support Stardock as the official anything. And to be fair, there aren't third-party sources for Pistol Shrimp either, which is why I haven't pushed for either link. The reason I suggested removing the external links was to prevent anyone from using them as a proxy to make declarations that violate WP:NPOV and WP:RS. ERegion is starting to see my point that the external links are always a dumpster fire -- fan pages, marketing material, and even pirated games. But I recognize that this is not the right forum to resolve our inconsistent link practices. The moderator has found a phrasing that is neutral about which link is the most deserving. If we use this WP:NPOV construction for the Star Control links section, I don't really have a strong objection to adding them. If not, the moderator's phrasing can become the phrasing for a neutral RFC. My experience is that RFCs often end in no consensus and I'd rather leverage the moderator to help wrap this up. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
RFC: Is StarControl.com the official website for Star Control and if so, should it be added as an external link to the article. (ERegion (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC))
I made this proposal to balance all perspectives but I would like to see some good faith. If we reach a consensus with the help of the moderator will the editors focus broadly on building an encyclopedia, or will they continue to push disputes about Stardock? Toys for Bob is the original developer of Star Control with the oldest official site going back to the early 2000s.[57] They are verified in secondary sources as the official site according to Gamespy[58] and was actually first original website listed at this article.[59] It was removed for some unknown reason but that is as official as you can get. The moderator avoids calling them the official site and calls them the "original developer" and therein lies the compromise. We can easily see that Pistol Shrimp is founded by the original developers who are making the third official game in the series under a new name. I would sooner add them as the copyright successor than Stardock who bought the name for their new series. But linking to both holders of intellectual property is the compromise. I agree that WP:NPOV verbiage is important to avoid re-litigating the lawsuit and I thank the moderator for helping us with that. I think we are so close that an RFC is unnecessary and even disruptive to meeting half way. But if the other editors insist on an RFC then I would ask all four links to be considered separately without any misleading language. The moderator has done a solid job removing loaded language from the question without hinting at which link is the most valid. Jorahm (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Eighth statement by moderator on Star Control
One editor has stated that they see the potential for a compromise. I am inviting each editor one more chance to propose a compromise concerning external links.
I have prepared a draft RFC at Talk:Star Control/Stardock RFC concerning the addition of a link to the Stardock Star Control page. There is already a template for Toys for Bob, which includes links to the human developers, Fred Ford (programmer) and Paul Reiche III. If there is no agreement on a compromise, I will move the draft RFC to the article talk page and remove the nowiki stuff, so that the draft RFC will become a real RFC. If anyone has a different suggestion for an RFC, or a compromise, or an idea as to why we do not need an RFC, they can provide it now in one paragraph. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Eighth statements by editors on Star Control
This is leaving an essential issue out of the discussion. It has been my preference to see the Toys for Bob external link returned to the article after it was removed.[60] This website's continuity as the official site goes back to the early 2000s[61] and its status as the official site is verified in historic sources such as Gamespy.[62] I acknowledge that this is one of the things in dispute but I strongly object to it being excluded from the RFC. The phrasing from Robert McClenon in the previous round was more inclusive of all the issues and more WP:NPOV. I would be open to including both sites as a show of good faith and without declaring primacy for either one. That is the goal of compromise; something where everyone gives a little to come to a consensus. Jorahm (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The preceding editor changed the RFC to something not agreed to nor asked for. The question that was asked is whether StarControl.com is the official site and whether it should be added or not. I am absolutely opposed to having non-standard language such as "copyright successor" be used especially when there are no reliable sources, or even primary sources on the issue. We don't know what rights "Pistol Shrimp" has. For all the alleged concern for WP:NPOV I've seen the two editors claim, their efforts on the article has consistently been to add more links to Fred Ford and Paul Reiche while either purging or ignoring the companies who actually own the franchise and published the games Accolade and later Stardock. The article doesn't even have Accolade's template for instance which I'd add but probably get accused of WP:PROMO by the gatekeepers. Adding an external link to Toys for Bob could be part of a compromise but shouldn't be part of the RFC initial statement. EggsHam (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Ninth statement by moderator on Star Control
I did not mention an external link to Toys for Bob because there is already a template for it. However, I see that the template does not include an external link, and one has to go to the developer article to get the external link. So it does make sense to provide an external link to Toys For Bob.
Thank you for including my request to include the Toys for Bob link. There is still an issue that the Toys for Bob site is the only webpage with secondary sources that establish it as "official".[63] There is no evidence that Stardock is the official site for anything but their new Origins series. The "official" site is in dispute at best. At worst it contradicts the reliable secondary sources. It would obviously be my preference to base the RFC on what the secondary sources say instead of what editors claim. But I'm trying to work with the other editors in good faith and the fairest thing is to write the question in a way that doesn't presume which link is more authoritative. I would also support simply adding both links in a WP:NPOV way if the other editors promise to respect it as a compromise and focus more broadly on improving the encyclopedia instead of a narrow focus on Stardock related WP:PROMO. (Additional Note) No one has provided evidence of the claim that Stardock is the "official" Star Control site while I have provided a secondary source for Toys for Bob.[64] In addition double redirects are discouraged on Wikipedia. The links are currently inconsistent and we should link to the most relevant subpage for both sites. I know this dispute has already demanded too much of our time but it is important to make the RFC neutral; arguments about which site is "official" belong in the comments section. Jorahm (talk) 19:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Even though I think it's obvious that StarControl.com is the official site for Star Control I see no reason why the the arguments against that can't be put in the RFC. There is no reason to waste time refuting, again, the claims being made by Jorahm. EggsHam (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
An editor requested that the link for Stardock should be www.starcontrol.com instead of https://www.stardock.com/games/starcontrol/, Those two URLs are equivalent because the first version is redirected on the web to the second.
The draft RFC is at Talk:Star Control/External Links RFC. Brief statements by the editors on the draft RFCs or on any other compromise are invited.
I was hoping someone would find a WP:NPOV compromise. Despite feeling cold towards self-published external links, I still think that Pistol Shrimp is the only link that actually offers history about the first Star Control game. But I agree that the biggest concern is making the RFC question WP:NPOV. Which site is "official" is in dispute. It would only be fair that editors make arguments about who is more "official" in the comments section, without the RFC question presuming the answer. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I accept that compromise is not possible. I know this has dragged out but I agree the RFC has a loaded question that contradicts the sources or is at least unsupported. For example, a more neutral question would be “Should an external link be provided to (URL)?” in both cases. Jorahm (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Eleventh statement by moderator on Star Control
One editor has said that they were hoping that someone would find a neutral compromise. Would they like to offer a neutral compromise?
Do they want to change the wording of the question about the Stardock site being "official"? It is my thinking that the proposed wording is neutral, because it does not say that the site is official, but asks whether it should be listed as an official site. However, I am willing to change the wording slightly. Do they want to propose an alternate wording about the Stardock site?
I have added Pistol Shrimp to the subsections of the RFC.
I agree that the wording should be NPOV. I thought the moderator's wording was neutral. But in the interests of stating pure facts I propose.
Should StarControl.com be restored as the official website in the external links section?
This would be a factual statement. From 2016 until 2020, there was a consensus that StarControl.com was the official website for the subject.[65]. This changed when an editor in this dispute made a bold, undocumented, undiscussed change in 2020 which, incidentally, was an edit he made on his first day editing the article.
Also, if we are going to discuss adding an unsourced, external link to a website claiming to be working on a sequel to The_Ur-Quan_Masters then the other link that links to the same people should be removed as redundant. Therefore another question should be added:
Should the external link to the dogarandkazon.com blog be removed?
The external link section should be very limited and we have two editors wanting to add redundant and unsourced links while simultaneously telling us we need to rely strictly on reliable sources. I could not find any mention of Pistol Shrimp Games from any source, reliable or not other than a link from the dev blog to it. (ERegion (talk) 13:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC))
Twelfth statement by moderator on Star Control
One editor has said that they were hoping that someone would find a neutral compromise. Would anyone like to offer a neutral compromise?
At the request of an editor, I have added a question about removing the developer blog.
I am finding the persistence of the editors in insisting on their own views of what is a neutral point of view to be troubling. I think that I feel like a trial judge giving an Allen charge to a jury, but will remind you that it is the Wikipedia community that is the jury. If I can't get agreement as to the wording of the RFC, I will submit the RFC to the community anyway. At this point, I will ask you a voir dire question. (In a real jury trial, this would be asked before deliberation started.) Do any of you have a conflict of interest with any of the parties involved in the development of the game? I will be submitting the RFC to the community after I get answers to that question. In the meantime, any editor may make another one-paragraph statement and may ask any questions, but I will not be delaying the publishing of the RFC much longer simply because of concerns about wording. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
So it's been a few days since this went up and it's all gone quiet. Is there a RFC notice board we should be reading? Thanks. EggsHam (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
We can avoid bias by focusing on areas where the third-party sources are in agreement. I think it's easy enough to find facts that aren't in dispute, and thus WP:NPOV. The official site is in dispute here. There aren't sources that support Stardock as official. It would be easy enough to remove disputed opinions embedded in the question, and replace them with consensus facts. For example, "Should an external link be provided to https://www.stardock.com/games/starcontrol/ as the creator of Star Control: Origins?" Or, "Should an external link be provided to https://www.stardock.com/games/starcontrol/ as the owner of the 'Star Control' trademark?" Those are both WP:NPOV. I have no conflict of interest. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
The current text looks fine. It's up to the editors to justify why or why not an external link should be added and why or why not the external site is official. Being the "creator" of something or having the trademark are not requirements to be an official site for the article's subject. The official site for The Hobbit has neither the trademark nor was the creator. Let's move this along. I have no COI. EggsHam (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I have no conflicts of interest. The most recent change looks fine. Stardock is in fact the Star Control trademark holder and the question is now based on a verified fact where there is a consensus. I agree with Eggsham that the editors should have to justify why or why not a site is “official”. It becomes essential that the question does not assume which site is official because we will be trying to discuss that in the RFC. Jorahm (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Back-and-forth on Star Control
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed as possibly being resolved by RFC. An editor tried to fix the draft RFC when it wasn't broken, and caused it to come to life in the wrong place, and I have tried to move it to the right place. The RFC is now running. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
An edit to include the ordinal number ‘one’ in the header of the article infobox, to show as “Mary I”, was reverted. Discussion has followed on the article talk page without a consensus being achieved. Having brought the discussion as far as I can, I do not personally regard the objections to the inclusion of the ordinal number as being justified. However, I do not wish to edit the article without consensus as I feel that an edit war may ensue. I continue to regard the inclusion of the ordinal number as an improvement to the article.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
If possible, propose a way forward from the current impasse resulting from a lack of consensus.
Summary of dispute by Celia Homeford
This dispute involves whether or not to include a single character in the infobox, namely an ordinal, "I". Doing so is unnecessary, unusual and undue. We don't apply numerals that are not generally in use. 'Mary I of Scotland' is about as common as 'Elizabeth I of Scotland' in gscholar searches: Mary I of ScotlandElizabeth I of Scotland. We wouldn't put 'Elizabeth I' or 'Elizabeth I and II' in the infobox of Elizabeth II. We shouldn't do it here either. No confusion arises from the omission of a numeral that is not in general use. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Deb
This is a content dispute, in which I have taken the side of the anon simply because I can't see the logic in the opposing arguments. I would prefer that it had not come to this. Deb (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by GoodDay
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My stance hasn't changed. The intro should begin with Mary I, the infobox heading should be Mary I. She should be shown as "Mary I" in the infoboxes of her father & son's pages. Indeed, her own page itself should be 'moved' to Mary I of Scotland. Anyways, back to the main dispute here. No one is going to confuse this monarch, with the English/Irish monarch of the same name. One ruled Scotland & was a member of the Stuart dynasty. The other, ruled England/Ireland & was a member of the Tudor dynasty. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, how could an editor be confused about which Mary I, we're speaking of, within her very own bio page? GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by EmilySarah99
I could understand her being refered to without a number if she were the only Queen Regnant of Scotland, but Mary II reigned over Scotland aswell, requiring Mary, Queen of Scots to have a regnal number. EmilySarah99 (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC).
I can disprove both their arguments by using logic:
"The intro should begin with Elizabeth I, the infobox heading should be Elizabeth I. She should be shown as "Elizabeth I" in the infoboxes of her father & son's pages. Indeed, her own page itself should be 'moved' to Elizabeth I of Scotland. No one is going to confuse this monarch, with the English/Irish monarch of the same name. One ruled Scotland and not Ireland & was a member of the Windsor dynasty. The other, ruled England/Ireland & was a member of the Tudor dynasty. ... Furthermore, how could an editor be confused about which Elizabeth I, we're speaking of, within her very own bio page?"
"I could understand her being refered [sic] to as Elizabeth II if she were the second Queen Regnant of Scotland, but Elizabeth I reigned over a different country, requiring Elizabeth to have I as a regnal number."
These statements are logically equivalent to the opening statements of GoodDay and EmilySarah, and many people believe them. If GoodDay's and EmilySarah's summaries are true in terms of logic, then so are these statements.
However, are these statements logic? Or are they bias POV? DrKay (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Johnbod
As DrKay says. To below: "SPA" means "single purpose account" and they are certainly that. WP:COMMONNAME here is utterly clear, and overrides the "logic" arguments. There is no possibility of confusion. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Mary, Queen of Scots discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
I don't think they count as an SPA, they made one reverted edit that doesn't push any POV and then started discussing it (neutrally?) on the talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
“
Number of edits: A user should not be tagged as an SPA just because they only have a handful of edits. While all users with just a single edit are by definition an SPA, users with as few as five or even 10 edits are not necessarily SPAs even if those edits are on a single topic or appear to be promoting a "single purpose." More important than the number is the content of those edits. Labeling a new account as an SPA after very few edits may be construed as biting the newcomers.
A single edit to the article on 25 September, which you reverted. You refused/declined to engage with me on your talk page afterwards. Following two days of silence from you, I took my query to the talk page, and here we are… You only engaged on the 10th of October at the Straw Poll. You appear to have more of an issue with my lack of moniker/pseudonym than with the content of my single edit, which you reverted and declined to have the courtesy to inform me as to why. Perhaps if I signed in as User:DrBee and had a few Barnstars on my talk page your attitude towards me would not cloud your contribution to the discussion?
Help:Infobox#What should an infobox contain is clear. The inclusion of the ordinal number does not contravene these guidelines and it would both alert and inform the reader to the fact that more than one Mary Stuart reigned as Queen regnant of the Kingdom of Scotland and would be consistent with the other 32 articles featuring a monarch of Scotland which include an associated ordinal number in the infobox header. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:AD1F:35A3:62FC:80CD (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, I guess I’m not in Kansas anymore, Toto… We are talking about Mary, Queen of Scots edits, are we not? I will not deny nor dispute having edited other articles, but to the best of my recollection, my single edit on this article was reverted, and by you. If you refer to other articles, please feel free to point out any edits elsewhere which you feel were of a type which would qualify as that of an SPA. In the meantime, anything you wish contribute to the ‘discussion’ would be welcome. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:AD1F:35A3:62FC:80CD (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Assuming all IPs starting with 2A00: who editing to the article starting 23 Sep are the same person, they have only made 13 11 edits. All of the rest were discussing with you. Plus I'm skeptical that 2A00:23C7:6987:8F01:6CEC:115F:AAF5:EFEF is also them anyways, so they have only made 4 2 edits. Discussion should not be counted towards SPA. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC) On a recount I only counted 11. Not sure how the extra two got in.Aaron Liu (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Happy to confirm as follows… 09:34 25 September and (as discussed on article talk prior to my doing so - my bad for having forgotten) 09:13 30 September. My other edits, apart from the 2 on the article page, (one reverted, one not), have been on the article’s talk page or the talk pages of the editors above. Now, can we get back to discussing the actual issue, please? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:AD1F:35A3:62FC:80CD (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Don't be redeculous. There are only 3 IPa that start with 2A00 since June and all of them are in September. Unless you're gonna count ALL of the IPs in the UK from June which requires evidence else it violates WP:AGF. Plus, aforementioned IP with 9 edits has a differenet M.O.. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Good grief! You’re just going to have to take my word for it DrKay, doctor of psychiatry you may be, but you’re no Sherlock Holmes. I made the edits I have detailed above, and if your objection to the proposed change to the infobox header is based solely upon your seeing evil in all that anon editors do, then your paranoia is duly noted. And I’m sorry, I have been the first to remind people of the need to assume good faith, but I didn’t come here to devote time and effort in attempting to engage with others, in the hope of improving this Wikipedia article, to be called both a liar and ridiculous by an admin. If that’s all that you have to bring to the table DrKay, then don’t let the door… etc.
1. as part of my obsession with wikipedia I'd like to tell you that it's TWO characters
2. This entire discussion is about a single edit! That doesn't change anything! While I think there's something fishy with how IP is so familiar with policies, I'm gonna AGF. IP simply wanted to know why it was reverted and contested that! Are you opposing contribution to Wikipedia? The IP is from UK and they edit stuff about UK, and not all UK topics fall under a single purpose! Aaron Liu (talk) 21:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Response to User:DrKay. LOL. I have neither the time nor the energy to be obsessed with you, sorry to disappoint. I am merely here, not for the first time, (I edited under my own moniker years ago, but it became too time consuming and my password/email is long forgotten), to try to improve an article. My edit was reverted by you, who didn’t have the courtesy, or the time or energy possibly, to respond to my genuine query as to why you did not consider my edit to have improved the article. Your lack of response led me to the talk page. Whether you engaged at any stage thereafter, mattered not, although I always feel the more the merrier where such discussions are concerned - avoids group think/echo chambers. But we digress… I’d be happy to continue this discussion elsewhere. Is your chair/chaise lounge comfortable? What is your hourly rate? (Just asking for a friend… )
I knew you were bias as soon as you complained about Johnbod's summary of the dispute even though his summary has similarities to those of Deb, Emily and GoodDay, which you didn't complain about. Deb mentioned logic, so did Johnbod. GoodDay mentioned confusion, so did Johnbod. Johnbod raised common name, which you ignored. You have no basis for a complaint. Now, you're "first statement" confirms that you are bias. DrKay (talk) 08:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Attention is called to the following in the page header of this noticeboard:
If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
First of all, DrKay, the comment I made on Johnbod's summary and on yours was becauseyou were commenting on contributors and not on content, which has no place in DRN.
Secondly, I have an opinion, of course, I am not a machine, but I am still acting as an impartial, fair mediator with a neutral POV as my opinion will not influence this discussion, contrary to your beliefs.
Now,let's go back to the real subject of this discussion.
Let's just say her number was I, I have no idea why one would confuse a Scotland monarch with an England monarch within her own page. You see "Mary I of Scotland" and think "Oh! That's the monarch who ruled over England!"‽ Aaron Liu (talk) 11:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
First statement by moderator
I see that there is a pretty active discussion on the subject, and that is great. Now, what would be great would be to take a good look at the concerned WP policies and guidelines and take it all down a notch. If someone can tell me if there has been any kind of edit war previously, that would be great.
So... The 1 of Doom, that humans fight over constantly is back in wikis near you ! If I can put in my opinion, if you follow history guidelines, we are obliged to put the I as there is a II. But hey, I'm supposed to be neutral,so...
Aniyway, if I could have ONE EDITOR' from each side of the conflict to write a SHORT PARAGRAPH about why they think they're right and withlinks and references of your choice if possible. Try to convince pacifically everyone else you're right ! Craffael.09 (talk) 23:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
COMMENT BY THE OPENING PARTY
This is not a discussion concerning the article title, therefore WP:COMMONNAME is not relevant. This discussion concerns the Infobox, specifically the header. The ordinal number “I” is not present in this article’s infobox header, therefore this fails to direct the reader to the fact that two individuals named “Mary Stuart” reigned as Queen regnant of the Kingdom of Scotland: Mary I (1542-1567) and Mary II (1689-1694). This despite the article’s lead stating a.k.a “Mary I” and the associated reference linking to a verifiable and reliable source, namely the National Records of Scotland - a government agency. Other articles concerning monarchs of Scotland contain associated ordinal numbers in the infobox header, including; Malcolm I of Scotland, Duncan I of Scotland, Alexander I of Scotland, David I of Scotland, William the Lion, Robert the Bruce, James I of Scotland, plus 25 others who are associated with an ordinal number. Despite being better known as “William the Lion” and “Robert the Bruce”, ordinal numbers appear as “William I” and “Robert I” in their respective infobox headers. As to confusion with other monarchs with the same name/ordinal number, confusion would not appear to be an issue with the infobox ordinal number at “Henry IV” of England, France, Castile or the Holy Roman Empire. Neither is there confusion or controversy resulting from the long-time stable article List of Scottish monarchs, where Mary, Queen of Scots appears as “Mary I”. Where online searches are concerned, “Mary I” tied with “Queen of Scots”/“Queen of Scotland”/“of Scots”/“of Scotland” returns about 146,000 840 hits on Google,{see below} and about 100 on Google Scholar. (Comparisons in numbers of hits with “Elizabeth I of Scotland” on G-Scholar are irrelevant, as these concern an unsuccessful 1950’s campaign by nationalists to prevent Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom from using the ordinal number “II” in Scotland, the nationalist argument being based upon there never having been an “Elizabeth I of Scotland”. This issue was resolved by a convention advocated by Sir Winston Churchill concerning regnal ordinal numbers in the UK). I consider it to be an improvement to the article to include the ordinal numer “I” in the infobox header.
On a personal note - I have nothing more to add to the debate and will therefore take a step back. Whilst enjoying interactions with other editors, being accused by some of being a nationalist, a liar, being ridiculous and obsessed, and others assuming bad faith on my part and that of others, has reminded me why I let a once active user account lapse into disuse. Regards 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:7C86:7B9B:E5E6:69DC (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd like a clarification. Which search term returned 146,000 hits? For some reason I can't view that statistic right now. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
As well you asked… No idea what’s going on but Google isn’t bowling straight. Just did exactly what I did yesterday by placing “Mary I, Queen of Scots”, “Mary I, Queen of Scotland”, “Mary I of Scots” and “Mary I of Scotland”, all including the quotation marks, into the Google search box and the numbers coming up are totally different! I’ll be damned if I know how. Any expert on Google analytics out there, feel free to educate me. Anyway, what the search terms I used yesterday are showing today are as follows…
Being driven to distraction…. checked the links and the numbers changed, again!!! See what you get yourself. Not sure if my browser compiles the returns in a cache somewhere and skews the results or if this is normal Google behaviour. Frankly I’ve no idea what’s going on with these search numbers, therefore place no weight on them whatsoever (until someone cares to explain how these discrepancies come about). And again I fully accept DrKay’s pointing out that there are three (four, including M,QoS) articles concerning monarchs of Scotland where an associated ordinal does not appear in the infobox header. 86.165.164.77 (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
You need to go to the final page of the results to get the actual numbers:
Is there a programme of some kind to run to confirm such? It would be time consuming in the extreme to go through them all, particularly when including those discounted ghits which don’t appear on the initial search, as Google “In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the *** already displayed. If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.” Displaying those “omitted results” gives about:
290 ghits for “Mary I, Queen of Scots”
203 ghits for “Mary I, Queen of Scotland”
22 ghits for “Mary I of Scots”
318 ghits for “Mary I of Scotland”
Sadly, I don’t have the time to go through about 840 ghits to establish which are reliable, but either way, whether the ordinal number does or does not appear in the infobox header is not determined by ghits. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:2C6E:A3C6:DF33:58DE (talk) 08:10, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Having clarified/corrected the ghits count and having conceded that, excluding the article being discussed, there are 3 articles from 36 which do not include the associated ordinal number in the infobox header, can we please proceed to the paragraph on behalf of those opposed, as per the moderator’s request? (Hello moderator, where art thou???) 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D555:5B1E:CBF5:D014 (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I am here. 23:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
So now, we have the paragraph PRO 1, we just need the paragraph from the oppostion. Please do not reply unless you are part os the opposition. Craffael.09 (talk) 23:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Comment from the Opposition
Comment on "logic"
I'm very puzzled by User:DrKay's attempt to draw comparisons between Elizabeth I of England and Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia, who was never a monarch and wasn't called "Elizabeth of Scotland". (I need to check why that redirect was changed in 2012.) I'm also puzzled by his statement on the Talk page that "There's no convention for numerals here." when referring to the pages for Scottish monarchs, because there plainly is such a convention: see James I of Scotland and his successors, Kenneth III of Scotland, Constantine III of Scotland, and so on. DrKay happened to pick inappropriate examples to look at, early monarchs who are known by soubriquets such as Kenneth MacAlpin. Deb (talk) 09:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Are you being deliberately obtuse or demonstrating the confusion that arises when editors use unusual or unfamiliar names? If the former, DrKay is clearly referring to Elizabeth II, and the events leading to the removal of the numeral from official use in Scotland. If the latter, it just proves what happens when people use an unusual or ambiguous form instead of a common name, like Mary, Queen of Scots. Celia Homeford (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
The fact that you have refused to withdraw your obviously false statement proves that it is either yet another desperate attempt to derail the discussion or yes, you are confused. I never mentioned Elizabeth Stuart. Anywhere. On any page. DrKay (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm also a bit confused here, which statement are your referring to? Could you link the diff of the corresponding edit? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
DrKay Clearly, whatever you were trying to say in your "logical" argument above was lost on me. Perhaps you could explain it more coherently and, while you are about it, you can withdraw the accusation of lying. Deb (talk) 05:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think DrKay was trying to draw comparisions between Elizabeth I of England and Elizabeth of Scotland. I think they were trying to draw comparisions between Mary I of Scotland to Elizabeth II to disprove GoodDay's argument. While that comparision is invalid as they used different ordinal conventions, DrKay still didn't try to compare Elizabeth I of England and Elizabeth of Scotland. They didn't link to Stuart.Aaron Liu (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think DrKay was trying to draw comparisions between Elizabeth I of England and Elizabeth of Scotland. I think they were trying to draw comparisions between Mary I of Scotland to Elizabeth II to disprove GoodDay's argument. While that comparision is invalid as they used different ordinal conventions, DrKay still didn't try to compare Elizabeth I of England and Elizabeth of Scotland. They didn't link to Stuart.Aaron Liu (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately the moderator has chosen to hide one side of the debate and permit false statements to remain on view. When Deb, an experienced editor who is an expert in the relevant area, is confused between 3 women who lived 4 centuries apart, how are ordinary readers to distinguish between two near contemporaries of the same name? Making their names more similar is not going to help. DrKay (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
DrKay Kindly withdraw the accusation of lying, which you've now made twice without any justification. Most reasonable people, when confronted with a misunderstanding, will look back at their own original comments to try to understand why they might have been misunderstood. The fact that you decline to accept that your comments were confusingly phrased and thus likely to cause confusion suggests that you can only see one side of the debate. Deb (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I didn't accuse you of lying. When someone makes a false statement, they may do it either intentionally (which is a lie) or mistakenly (which is a mistake not a lie). I pointed out that you made a false statement about me. I did not say whether your statement was intentional or merely mistaken. I presume it is the latter. You are clearly confused and that's not because of my incoherence. If anything your confusion demonstrates that my argument has achieved its objective. DrKay (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Basically his original "accusation" was that you made a false statement, not that you were lying. Re read it and you'll find that true. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The moderator didn’t hide one side of the debate, they merely hid the parts that were 1. About the filer not the content 2. Aggressive 3. Questioning the good faith of the moderator 4. About something that doesn’t determine the content (ghits)
Also, Deb's confusion isn't a very good demonstration of why people could get Mary confused. Deb was confused because of a misleading redirect that redirected Eliz I of Scotland to Eliz Stuart. They were also only confused about 2 women.
No. Elizabeth I of Scotland has never redirected to Elizabeth Stuart. Ever. And there are definitely 3 women: Elizabeth Tudor, Elizabeth Stuart and Elizabeth Windsor. You are yet again merely confirming my proof that people can be easily confused. DrKay (talk) 11:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Second statement by alternate moderator (Mary of Scotland)
This discussion seems to have stalled, and I will try to restart it. Please read the rules. Please answer two questions concisely. First, are you still interested in moderated discussion? Second, will each editor please state, in one paragraph, what they think the issue is or issues are? Robert McClenon (talk) 07:42, 7 November 2022 (UTC):
Hi. “This discussion seems to have stalled” as those involved have been waiting since October 31 for one of those who “oppose” to post a paragraph stating clearly their objections to the proposed change. This paragraph was requested for the second time by the first moderator (user:Craffael.09) on November 04, and we still await a post from OPP 1. (PRO 1 “COMMENT BY THE OPENING PARTY” was posted November 01). Given that those who oppose, despite the arguments placed here and elsewhere by myself and others, appear unlikely to acquiesce to the proposed change, I feel that there is little point in regurgitating the same points via “second statements” and instead am inclined to move to WP:RFCorWP:RFCL. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:D555:5B1E:CBF5:D014 (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Second statements by editors (Mary of Scotland)
Third statement by alternate moderator (Mary of Scotland)
It appears that one question is whether to put a regnal Roman numeral I in the infobox, so that her name in the infobox will be Mary I. Are there any other issues?
It appears that supporting statements have been made, and that no opposing statement has been made. Any editor who disagrees with including the numeral should make a one-paragraph statement. If there are no opposing statements, I will close the discussion saying that a rough consensus has been reached to include the numeral.
I think the numeral should be included, as it is in the infoboxes of other Scottish monarchs such as James I of Scotland and David I of Scotland. I do not understand the argument that this could cause confusion - in my opinion it does quite the opposite. Deb (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
It appears that one editor opposes the inclusion of the numeral in the infobox, and says that it will cause confusion. I will ask any editor who says that the numeral will cause confusion to say what incorrect conclusion could be drawn from it. Is it incorrect, or merely unfamiliar? It is true that the regnal numeral is not in common use, but an encyclopedia sometimes provides information that is true and not well known.
If we do not have agreement to use the numeral, we will start a Request for Comments. So I will advise the editors to be thinking of how they can clearly and concisely present their views to editors with no prior involvement.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Fourth statements by editors (Mary of Scotland)
Fifth statement by moderator (Mary of Scotland)
Since we do not have agreement on the regnal number in the infobox, an RFC will be used. A draft of the RFC is at Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots/RFC on Number. The current draft RFC is very brief and does not provide a case either for or against the use of the regnal number. So I am asking each editor to write a one-sentence or two-sentence statement as to why the regnal number should or should not be used. I will then choose the supporting statement and the opposing statement that I think are the clearest and most concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Statement 5.1 by moderator
The RFC is not live yet. It is a draft. When it goes live, I will move any statements that have been entered in the Survey, because their timestamps will be before the RFC went live. You may make your brief supporting statements either here or in the draft RFC. When the RFC goes live, I will move any statements to this noticeboard, so that you can copy them back into the RFC with a new signature. (I don't want to confuse the closer with timestamps predating the publication of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Understood. However, in the event that the apparent ‘radio silence’ on the part of those who oppose the inclusion of the regnal numeral persists, will the RFC be able to proceed if one side of the argument declines to engage? On the 8th you requested ”any editor who says that the numeral will cause confusion to say what incorrect conclusion could be drawn from it”. Despite being active elsewhere on Wikipedia in the interim, none of the editors who have participated to date in order to oppose the inclusion of the ordinal number have clarified their position in this respect within the timeframe (48 hours) specified in Wikipedia:DRN Rule A.10. Might I suggest your contacting directly those (three) who oppose in order to determine if they wish to withdraw their opposition to the inclusion of the ordinal, or to invite them to continue to participate in the process of resolution if their opposition persists? (Happy to proceed to RFC in any event, but conscious of taking up too much band-width on the part of other editors). Thank you. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:57A:94E1:E11:2B29 (talk) 17:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Fifth statements by editors (Mary of Scotland)
Sixth statement by moderator (Mary of Scotland)
I would like to make the RFC live within 24 to 48 hours. I asked editors to make brief statements supporting and opposing the addition of the regnal number. If I don't get any further answer, I may conclude that there is a rough consensus to add the regnal numeral, since there has been no answer to my question of why it will cause confusion. So please, either provide your statements within 24 hours, and the RFC will go live, or I will conclude that there is a rough consensus to add the numeral. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Sixth statements by editors (Mary of Scotland)
Back-and-forth discussion (Mary of Scotland)
For balance, and as the admin who reverted the edit to the article, perhaps user:DrKay would care to expand their sentence above to a full paragraph, as “OPP 1”, and support their points with evidence? For example, how an edit which they reverted in a matter of minutes caused confusion? (Please avoid referencing the “logic” discussion above, where user:DrKay’s own contributions could be said to have been the source of confusion - entirely unrelated to the proposed edit to the infobox). For clarity, please could they also include in the paragraph the source for the definition of what quantifies as “general use”, whereby such is defined as, for example, a term which exceeds about 850 ghits and/or about 100 g’scholar hits. Thank you. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:5966:CC3F:1385:75C0 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Having reviewed all associated discussions on this topic, it is clear that there is a clear consensus already with one person dissenting. I'm sorry that OP does not like the current consensus, but at some point you need to accept that your prefered way is not going to be accepted by other editors and find another page to edit. This board is not going to overturn an existing and established consensus. Nightenbelle (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I believe that I have properly demonstrated that their are other mainstream opinions on the dating of the book, and I believe that the article should not be written in a way that treats a 165 BC dating as fact. I believe a 165 BC date should be represented as the majority opinion, but wikipedias voice should not assume it to be true. Other editors disagree and think that other views (besides the 165 BC dating) represent fringe views. The reliability of the sources I provide is discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Book_of_Daniel
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I also previously opened a DRN but it was too early.
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
I think my sources demonstrate that there are other mainstream opinions (please see the reliable sources noticeboard linked above for a list of my sources). I would like an admin to weigh in whether or not I have a reasonable point. I would like to have the article written in a way that does not assume any dating as it is still a debated point. Thanks.
Summary of dispute by Tgeorgescu
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
To clear up misunderstandings: there are plenty of conservative evangelical and fundamentalist scholars who deny the 160s BC dating, but by and large they aren't mainstream Bible scholars, and generally speaking they don't publish such POVs in mainstream scholarly journals, but in their own walled garden of pious theological journals.
On my own talk page it is written large: The recipe for getting past my "theological" objections is quite simple: don't challenge WP:RS/AC (if there happens to be one) and use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for evangelical/traditionalist positions.
The OP is the one claiming that a controversy about the dating of Daniel is raging in the mainstream academia in the 21st century. If it raged in the 20th century, then it is simply a thing of the past, already left behind. To this date, no WP:V evidence has been produced to that extent (i.e. 21st century).
A very generous assumption is that Beckwith (2002) reflects the situation of the debate up to and including 2001 AD, i.e. more than 20 years ago. And Thompson (2020) is in fact a 1993 book, i.e. not written in the 21st century. But in fact the newest source cited by Beckwith dates from 1997, i.e. 25 years ago. So it debates no scholarly publication from the 21 century.
And Haughwout (2013) is simply not WP:RS according to Wikipedia's WP:PAG.
To answer OP's statement: in the mainstream academia the dispute about the dating of Daniel ceased more than a century ago. Another dating than 160s BC is simply dead in the water, as far as the mainstream academia is concerned.
Seven WP:RS have been produced for the WP:RS/AC claim (Dunn 2003, Portier-Young 2016, Theophilos 2012, Lester 2015, Ryken & Longman 2010, Tucker Jr. 2020/2012, Collins 1998), including one RS that has an axe to grind against the scholarly consensus, nevertheless renders it for what it is.
So, substantively, I agree with tgeorgescu here, but I think as a threshold matter, this is not really a dispute resolution matter. There is a clear consensus against the proposed edits. This is not a dispute that needs resolution, it is simply that Billyball998 has failed thus far to carry the burden of persuasion to include his preferred version (no offense intended, of course). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Iskandar323
As Dumuzid notes above, the matter is one of threshold. A couple of sources doubting the prevailing dating consensus does not mean that the current dating consensus is seriously up for question. Every theory has doubters, and every good academic should have doubts, but the prevailing consensus remains the prevailing consensus. It is worth noting that of the sources asking questions the 2nd century dating scheme, none that I have seen have presented a theory with a specific alternative dating estimate, so the only sources running counter to the prevailing dating consensus are those mirroring it - making it all the more clear that it is the prevailing consensus, as the only one garnering critical attention. Yet in the process of this academic questioning, no substantive alternative is presented. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by warshy
I've presented my arguments on the long wall-of-text discussions of the matter on the talk page caused by the same OP that is now still trying to keep going with with it. The consensus, based on the most updated academic reliable sources is that Daniel is a late book of the Hebrew Bible, part of "Writings" section in the Hebrew Canon, and the only book of the Hebrew Bible of which large, substantial parts are written in Aramaic, not in Hebrew. I have also said many times that this is a clear case of WP:STICK, but this user apparently has the time needed to keep disrupting the routine building of the encyclopedia, based strictly on reliable sources. His motivation, and the amount of time he has spent on this so far, indicates to me a clear religious fundamentalist bias. warshy(¥¥)17:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Achar Sva
The dispute seems clear - the article states that Daniel is a 2nd century work and the OP believes that the possibility of a 6th century date should be discussed. I'd just add that authorship and divine origin is bound up with this - if Daniel has a 6th century date then the author is presumably Daniel and the book accurately reports on his experiences with dreams and angels. Achar Sva (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry to argue but this isn't true, even many traditional views don't believe Daniel wrote the book. All I'm presenting is evidence that the 165 bc theory is not a consensus. Any date from 550-130 bc is left open. Billyball998 (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Talk:Book of_Daniel discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
I raised a discussion on the talk page on the article regarding the capital of Singapore, as multiple editors have claimed that Singapore does not have a capital, given its the only city within the country of the Republic of Singapore. However, the United Nations Statistic Department listed Singapore as the capital of the Republic of Singapore, Singapore is also listed as a national capital of the country it is situated in on the List of national capitals by population.
User Chipmunkdavis reverted the edits without coming to a consensus and did not answer any of the questions I've posed in the discussion on the talk page. User Sgweirdo has been removing the content regarding the largest town by population in Singapore, as well as the capital of Singapore, without discussion in the talk page and without edit summary.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Help the discussion reach a consensus and providing the correct information within the infobox in the Singapore article.
Summary of dispute by Chipmunkdavis
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
This dispute is Deoma12 edit warring in their infobox preferences [68][69][70][71][72][73] over a few weeks despite multiple other editors disagreeing. Their talkpage posts were immediate badfaith jumps. The characterisation above of the issue as being one editor (me) who "reverted the edits without coming to a consensus" is an obfuscation of the previous edit warring against other editors. (I note with wry amusement that the two progressing cases on this page also emerged due to infobox changes.) CMD (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Sgweirdo
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Singapore discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Economy_of_Bangladesh
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
A user User:Solomon The Magnifico mentioned in the talk page of an article (Economy of Bangladesh) to resolve conflict with another user (User:AMomen88). The issue was the photo of the infobox. Two users got into edit war for infobox photo. The other user gone from the discussion after got insensible words from him. Then I tried to solve and proposed anither photo because I believe that his photo is not suitable (low quality and unsuitable size for infobox). But he said some baseless and insensible things to me. Even he accused me of bulling him (but I believe that was misunderstanding and I clarified him). That's why I need conflict resolving.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
By choosing better photo for the infobox of Economy of Bangladesh ot helping by choosing any image we proposed.
Summary of dispute by Solomon The Magnifico
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I placed File:Gulshan Avenue.jpg in the infobox. This is being opposed by the two editors Mehediabedin and AMomen88. The picture captures most of Gulshan Avenue, which has the largest concentration of companies and local and foreign banks in all of Bangladesh. Gulshan is described in many sources as Dhaka's CBD. The Dhaka Stock Exchange has also shifted from the old CBD to a location near Gulshan. Most international companies, banks and hotels operating in Bangladesh are based in Gulshan. The image I placed has good resolution. It also captures the avenue's large concentration of commercial buildings. In fact it focuses on the most dense commercial zone in Gulshan (which is Gulshan 1). The other images suggested by the two editors are in areas which are on the sidelines, in terms of Dhaka's financial industry.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
For merely placing the image, my edits were falsely labelled as vandalism. Some comments felt like bullying. Judging by the behavior of both editors in Talk:Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (where one of them is pushing historical inaccuracies and another is reverting wholesale without explanation), it appears to me that they could potentially be politically-motivated as pro-opposition editors who do not want Bangladesh to be shown in a realistic light. I'm just trying to be encyclopedic. Instead, I have to face what seems like a concerted effort by both editors to obstruct my edits in two articles.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 17:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Excuse me if some comments felt like bullying to you. Because I am not native in English so that can be happen. Even I clarified my action after accusing by you But what you said to AMomen88 was more than bullying. Even after mentioned me to the discussion you didn’t give respect to other editors in the talk page. You said he don't like Gulshan that's why he is removing your photo! Same type of accusation was made by you against me in the article of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman. Let me ask a question, did I edit anything in the article without proper discussion or sources?? No, then how can you say that that was politically motivated? I am just proposing a lead section that can be changed by other editors suggestion. So how is that politically motivated? And even is this related to the photo issue in Economy of Bangladesh? Was objection to use your photo was politically motivated? Or are you want to say that I don't like Gulshan? Calling other "Monster" isn’t encyclopedic behaviour. I agree that AMomen88 also said some bad things. But saying rough things to other editors who don't think your photo as suitable can't be encyclopedic. Edit war isn’t encyclopediac. That’s why I had to intervene in articles you both engaged in edit war. Because I need to resolve the conflict between you two. But I couldn’t think that for that act I will get some baseless accusations. Mehedi Abedin07:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by AMomen88
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
Economy_of_Bangladesh discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer Note - It appears that the filing editor has notified one of the other editors but not the other one. If they have both been notified, please provide diffs showing that they have been notified. Otherwise please notify the other editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Good day - since all involved have either been notified or have made their way here, I am willing to mediate this dispute. However, in addition to the normal rules we follow here- I'm going to add another: No editor may make any comments about another editor- this includes their motivation, where they live, why they are editing, their political motivations, anything at all about the people. The dispute up till now has been exceedingly uncivil- I will not have that here. You are all to talk to me only, not to each other. Do not even respond to what the other editors have said- just respond to me or my questions. Do all involved agree? Nightenbelle (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Editor's Statements
@Nightenbelle: As I said earlier, the dispute is about File:Gulshan Avenue.jpg. I can't possibly understand why the two editors are opposing this image. It is a photo of Gulshan Avenue, as the description of the photo lays out. It is one of the clearest photos of Gulshan Avenue that I found on Wikimedia Commons. It has a good resolution and captures the concentration of commercial buildings on the main road really well. Gulshan Avenue is a prime business hub of Dhaka and Bangladesh. One of the opposing editors has no problem with an image of Gulshan per se but is absolutely opposed to this image because the other opposing editor wants to insert an image of a shopping mall and an office block, File:Panthapath.jpg, which is located in Panthapath. Then again, one of the opposing editors has emphasized about Dhaka's status as a financial center. In that case, why have an image of a shopping mall instead of the avenue with the largest presence of local and foreign banks in all of Bangladesh? Bangladesh Monitor describes Gulshan as "the Central Business District and the highest-rated market in Dhaka". United Group (Bangladesh) calls Gulshan a neo central business district. The real estate brokerage BTI says Gulshan managed to steal the spotlight in the past few years. Indeed, the Dhaka Stock Exchange has shifted to a place near Gulshan (though not within Gulshan itself). In terms of the financial industry, all banks have a presence on the street of Gulshan Avenue (which makes the street unparalleled in terms of financial access in Bangladesh). Standard Chartered, Citibank, HSBC are the three largest foreign banks in Bangladesh and all are located in Gulshan. Other foreign banks like Woori Bank, SBI and HBL are also located in Gulshan. Bangladesh has dozens of banks and all have offices in Gulshan, including public sector banks and private sector banks. Some banks are also based in Gulshan, including Eastern Bank, United Commercial Bank, NRB Bank, and Shahjalal Bank. One of the opposing editors thinks Gulshan is only a hub for the private sector. That's not true. State-owned banks have branches in Gulshan as well, so that should address his concerns.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
@Nightenbelle: If anyone want to use photo of Gulshan I have no problem. But I saw that AMomen88 want to use photo of Panthapath, but to me using photo of Panthapath isn’t suitable (because we can see some commercial buildings but not the whole commercial environment of Panthapath). But there is another issue. It seems to me that the photo of Gulshan, while using in the infobox, show excessively long (maybe I should use the word "large") and blurish a little bit (maybe that's because it shows longer in the infobox). That's why to me it is not suitable to use in the infobox. I proposed Solomon to choose another photo of Gulshan because they don't show longer in the infobox and if your photo don't look like longer thing in infobox then it will not seem blurish (note that I use smartphone to browse Wikipedia). Because it seems blurish in the infobox, it looks like low resolution photo. It will be good if any photo, shows long in the infobox, can be ignored. Mehedi Abedin05:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
We are off to a very bad start folks. I did not ask for summaries. I've read your summaries above. I asked if you agree to follow all the rules. Not one of you answered that question. You did break the rules by commenting on the other editors instead of sticking to JUST the content.
So I ask again- do you all agree to the rules I stated above? If I do not get a clear answer this time- I will close this dispute as failed.15:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Still waiting on 1- but we'll continue and assume they will post their agreement above in time.
Next- I would ask each of you what you think the ideal photo for this article would be. Please don't just describe one or the other of the photos in debate- but I would like to know what you think makes a truly perfect photo for this article. What should it show? What would make it high quality technically? It may well be that neither picture is your ideal- that doesn't mean we won't use one- my goal here is to agree on a baseline that we can then work from to determine a good photo. 15:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Editor's Statements 3
For me, the ideal photo should not seem oversized in the infobox. We should not use longer or larger-size-like photo because then its noisiness or blurish characteristics will easily be seen. Also, there are some photo that are large but when we set in infobox it seems small, but there are exceptions. So we don't want these execptional photo for the infobox. We should prefer landscape photo. There are some case I have seen that a photo was seen perfect in Desktop mode, but the same photo seemed blurish in the mobile mode. So we should choose photo that will seem good in both mode. The photo is for the infobox of "Economy of Bangladesh", that means the photo has to be from commercial areas in Dhaka, its capital. The photo has to be better portray the country's economical environment. So we need to choose photo of commercial areas from Gulshan, Motijheel, Paltan, Bashundhara etc. The photo has to be a perfect skyline photo. We can use old photo, but that doesn’t mean that the photo have to be from so far like 5-10 years. Photos from 1-5 years is okay if we can't find perfect photo from latest commons uploads. The photo have to be present the country's commercial or economoical environment that doesn’t mean the photo must contains office buildings of popular companies, but we should prefer. Also, we shouldn’t focus on only the buildings of private companies in the photo, we should prefer photos that will portray both private-government setting of the economy. Mehedi Abedin15:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
You don't need to ping me with every answer- I promise, I will be checking this dispute often (Although I do check less often on the weekend) You are correct- there are not rules about the picture- other than copyright rules. And yes- you are correct about what is most common in these types of articles. Those pictures have been agreed on by various editors. So, I want to be clear before we move forward- the only thing you value in a photograph for this article is that it shows the financial district of the largest city? If there are more things you would like to see in the photo- please state them, otherwise this will be pretty easy- since an easy compromise would be to ask the other editor to choose a photo that meets that 1 requirement that also meets their requirement and then be done. Would that work for you? Or would you like to specifically list what qualities and subjects would make a photo ideal? At this point- I'm concerned that there is a communication issue that is going to hinder discussions. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Well I don't mean to be shallow. What if a city has multiple financial districts? That is the case with the city in question here. So I would say, the most important financial district of a country. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 15:30, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Statement 4
Okay- moving forward these are the qualifications each of you listed for a picture for this article:
Not oversized
Landscape/ Cityscape
Clear in desktop and mobile mode
From a commercial area in Dhaka- the capital
Preferably from the last 5 years, older is okay though
Prefer photo of buildings of popular companies
A mix of private and government buildings
From the most important financial district in the country
a concentration of commercial buildings
I would add (if its okay):
Photo should be of good quality / photographic merit (IE- well composed, in focus, good lighting)
So we have our list- and our 2 pictures:
Not oversized
Landscape/ Cityscape
Clear in desktop and mobile mode
From a commercial area in Dhaka- the capital
Preferably from the last 5 years, older is okay though
Prefer photo of buildings of popular companies
A mix of private and government buildings
From the most important financial district in the country
a concentration of commercial buildings
Good quality / well composed
original photo and
In the interest of compromise- I found a couple other photos on wikimedia that seem to fit the article:
Good quality photo. But it is not portraying the country's economy setting. The photo is showing just some buildings nothing else. Mehedi Abedin14:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
It is not from the leading financial district of the country. It shows Bashundhara City, which is a shopping mall and office for the Bashundhara Group. The company itself is not based in this building and has shifted to a place near Gulshan (in the Bashundhara Residential Area). The other building shown in the image belongs to Unique Group and rents out office space to businesses. So it is basically just two buildings. It does not capture the larger commercial area of Kawran Bazar where many newspapers and state-owned companies have offices, being Dhaka's version of Fleet Street.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Photo 2 Discussion
Photo 2 shows Economy situation and portray the country's commercial setting in the good way. But has blurish characteristic. It seems larger and longer in the infobox and that is no good for infobox. It is from Gulshan and that is okay. Mehedi Abedin14:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Imagine Fifth Avenue was empty on a holiday. This is Dhaka's answer to that. In terms of size, it is more vertical than the more horizontal pictures used in infoboxes of country-specific economy articles. But is there a rule which forbids that? No. Can size be reduced? Yes.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Photo 3 Discussion
I think it is option 3. The photo has good quality and it is from one of the best commercial areas. Solomon wanted the the photo have to from Gulshan only and the photo is from Gulshan. From the setting of the photo it will not seem longer or larger in the infobox. It is a good skyline photo and it will better present to Economy situation of Bangladesh (and good thing is the photo was captured in 2021). Mehedi Abedin14:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
This is potentially a compromise. It captures the skyline well. It has a good mix of buildings. Its size can be adjusted for the infobox. Major companies are located along this avenue, including MNCs like the local head offices of Citibank and Siemens; and many local companies. The Dhaka North City Corporation, a public authority, is also based on this avenue. It shows the most important financial center in contemporary Bangladesh.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Photo 4 Discussion
It has good quality and from one of business areas in Dhaka. But it is not showing or portray economical situation of the country. We can see road in the left of the photo. The photo is good for showing streets of Dhaka. Mehedi Abedin14:24, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
It captures only one part of Gulshan Avenue. In comparison, Photo 2 and Photo 3 captures the Gulshan Avenue skyline more broadly. Like Photo 1, I am afraid Photo 4 has too few buildings and fails to capture the density of the commercial zone and financial centre of Gulshan Avenue.--Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Closed. There are several problems with this filing, some of which can be remedied. First, it requires considerable research for a volunteer to figure out what this dispute is about. It is not about US, which is a redirect to United States, or about United States, but about one place in the United States, so the dispute is wrongly titled. Second, the filing editor has not listed the other editor, and has not notified the other editor. Third, there does not appear to have been discussion at any article talk page, only on the filing editor's user talk page. Fourth, the issue appears to be that the filing editor wants to add an article on Camp Connell and eliminate redirects from Camp Connell and Camp Connell, California. To eliminate a redirect, send it to Redirects for Discussion. DRN is not a forum for deletion discussions, because they are discussed in deletion forums. Fifth, the filing editor evidently has a conflict of interest. This is not a case for DRN. The filing editor should first declare their conflict of interest, and then either tag the redirects for RFD, or create a Draft:Camp Connell and submit it for AFC review. Don't do anything else before declaring the conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
The site Camp Connell General Store is being redirected to Dorrington , California. The two are only related because the creator of Camp Connell Jack and Doreen Connell named Dorrington and the correct application within the Dorrington site is to direct to Camp Connell. However when you put "Camp Connell, California", or Camp Connell in the search in redirects to Dorrington, CA. Camp Connell is a place, I have a picture of the sign. On google maps, Apple Maps, and others (like AirBnB) it shows up. Typing in Camp Connell and being directed to Dorrington is erroneous as the two places has their own unique history, and this redirect eliminates this for Camp Connell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HouseBlaster is the editor that reversed my changes on the redirect, and although I don't approve of this person's behavior, I just want the redirect to be eliminated so I can update the history of Camp Connell. Others in the community want the same thing.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
eliminate the redirect. Allow Camp Connell to be an independent site, and inhibit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HouseBlaster from being allowed to revise, edit or change the content of the Camp Connell site
US discussion
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.
