Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

"WP:DRN" redirects here. For the "Deny Recognition" essay, see WP:DNR.

Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

This is an informal place to resolve small content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups. Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Do you need assistance? Would you like to help? Request dispute resolution If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion. We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves. The dispute must have been recently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor. Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice. Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session. Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc. If you need help: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page. Become a volunteer We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input. Volunteers should remember: Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants. Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. 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. Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits. Open/close quick reference To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}} To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic	Closed	Randomstaplers (t)	29 days, 11 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 10 hours
List of musicals filmed live on stage	Closed	Wolfdog (t)	11 days,	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 11 hours	Wolfdog (t)	3 days,
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, Zsa Zsa Gabor	New	PromQueenCarrie (t)	9 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 10 hours	Beshogur (t)	1 days, 6 hours
Genocides in history (before World War I)	New	Jonathan f1 (t)	4 days, 20 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	4 days, 11 hours	Cdjp1 (t)	4 days, 2 hours
List of prime ministers of Sri Lanka	New	DinoGrado (t)	3 days, 7 hours	None	n/a	DinoGrado (t)	3 days, 7 hours
Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf	New	Titan2456 (t)	2 days, 1 hours	None	n/a	SheriffIsInTown (t)	2 days,
Ryan T._Anderson	New	Marspe1 (t)	1 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	15 minutes	Robert McClenon (t)	15 minutes

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 16:46, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Current disputes

Pellumb Xhufi

– This request has been placed on hold.

Filed by Alexikoua on 01:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute
Articles about Greek-Albanian history and demographics, in particular the use of works by the specific author (so far) in:

• Anti-Ottoman revolts of 1565–1572
• Himara Revolt of 1596
• Epirus revolt of 1611
• Albanians in Greece
• Petros Lantzas
• Parga
• Margariti
• Delvinë

Users involved

• Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
• Çerçok (talk · contribs)
• Alltan (talk · contribs)
• Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs)
• Khirurg (talk · contribs)
• ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ (talk · contribs)
• SilentResident (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There have been a lot of problems in Greek-Albanian history topics regarding the use of Albanian politician and historian Pellumb Xhufi as reference. While ostensibly an academic, he has been repeatedly criticized for "aggressive nationalistic tone", "nationally one-sided scientific articles", "nationalist polemics", by various scholars. Controversial would be anything that is typically controversial (e.g. ethnicity, demographics), especially in relation to other available sources.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• Talk:Petros_Lantzas#Alternative_views
• Talk:Anti-Ottoman_revolts_of_1565–1572)
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pellumb_Xhufi

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

At a recently RSN case filled by user:Khirurg Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pellumb_Xhufi the issue was proposed to be brought here in order to be assessed by uninvolved third-parties. The main question here is if an author that is widely involved in nationalist narrative both in his works but also in local news and TV shows can be used as wp:RS in wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by Alexikoua

In this case serious issues arise regarding the use of works by Xhufi that are published by publishers of unknown reliability and journals for which the level of peer-review is unclear. Their use remains problematic - and certainly non- wp:RS- because of the following:

In collective academic works about the quality of Balkan-related historiography

• [[1]] O.J. Schmitt of the Austrian Academy of Science (by the way a non-Balkan himself) reads (p. 726):

institutionalized Albanian research on the Epirus question has a defensive (Beqir Meta), but often aggressive-nationalistic tone (Pëllumb Xhufi), which in both cases hardly shows any signs of self-reflection. Close connections between science and politics, which are particularly evident in the person of Xhufi, hardly contribute to an objectification of the discussion.
... In recent years, Xhufi has specialized in anti-Greek or anti-Orthodox rhetoric
...Xhufi also published rich material, but unfortunately nationally one-sided scientific essays

• [[2]], historian Konstantinos Giakoumis provides the following information on the subject:

p. 144: "The dominance of ethnocentric, monoscopic and rather localistic interpretative apparatusis apparently not a trait of some Albanian historiographical works (cf. Xhufi 2009;

Critiques on Xhufi's methodology and interpretation of primary material

• Historian K. Giakoumis states: ([[3]])

p. 173: According to the Albanian historian Pellumb Xhufi, who misinterpreted Ottoman registers and a Greek chronicle, Dropull was colonized by Greeks not earlier than the beginning of the seventeenth century.

• linguist D. Kyriazis reads [[4]] (translation here: [[5]]):

Xhufi 2016 (Arbërit e Jonit) in order to prove that the Greek-speaking pockets in south Albania are due to relatively recent settlements of populations that came from parts of present-day Greece, linguistic data are systematically bypassed or selectively used,

• O.J. Schmitt: [[6]], translation here: [[7]],

"Xhufi's , Dilemat e Arberit, 2006, offers partly nationalistic polemics against Greek historiography".

• Another detailed critique by D. Kyriazis [8] (in Albanian).

• Xhufi has also been criticized by Albanian scholars for falsifying primary sources [9].

Non-neutral narrative in newspapers and tv shows

• A particularly troubling editorial by Xhufi in a Kosovo newspaper [10]; claims about conspiracies, demographic purity, Greeks in Albania are paid agents of the Greek government, etc. It is certainly not the narrative of a neutral historical but the typical narrative for internal national consumption. Similar deceleration also here [[11]].

• Launched polemics against inclusion of the ethnicity question in the 2011 Albanian census claiming that it will "turn Albania into another Lebanon" [12], that doing so was selling out to Greek interests, and claimed on live tv that Greek foreign minister Nikos Dendias is a "secret Albanian", because his last name bears a similarity with an Albanian word [13].

• Xhufi publicly calling for the expulsion of local religious leader, Anastasios of the Orthodox Church, because he is not part of the national project: [[14]] (p. 725) & [[15]]

• At the presentation of his book "Arbërit e Joni" (here [[16]] (which has created hot debates in various discussions in wiki) the usual polemics are also dominant, declaring that:

“Greeks are manipulating history” & history should be “re-written again from scratch”, “everything down to Preveza is part of the Albanian habitat since the medieval age.”

• Xhufi's statements about communist-era concentration camps in Albania received also negative critiques:

[[17]] Pellumb Xhufi has angered scholars and the descendant of survivors of an infamous labour camp by claiming the conditions there were ‘not bad’.

His historical narrative differs only slightly from that of the authoritarian (pre-1991) regime of the P.R. of Albania: [[18]] (p. 65). Also modern Albanian officials do not hesitate to accuse him of taking the post of history professor during the People's Republic era: [[19]].

Xhufi is an active politician, former deputy minister in his country who frequently appears on local tv shows and displays nationalist rhetoric. Scholarship and news have heavily criticized his research. From my experience in wikipedia there were several less partisan cases of authors that were dismissed for not meeting wp:RS.Alexikoua (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Çerçok

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Alltan

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Ktrimi991

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Khirurg

I agree with Alexikoua that this is a pressing issue that needs to be resolved. I also agree with him regarding the criticisms of Xhufi. I do not think he should be used to source anything controversial. Khirurg (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ

It is patently clear that the insertion of Xhufi into a growing list of Balkan-related articles is part of a concerted POV push, and therefore a constant source of friction. The project would benefit greatly if editors simply restricted themselves to reliable sources, preferably those published in English, and refrained from inflaming tensions by citing activist authors like Xhufi, who is controversial for all the reasons outlined by Alexikoua above. ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SilentResident

Pellumb Xhufi has to be addressed for his reliability because he is being cited in a growing number of articles, without wp:consensus. I would like to point out that the English Wikipedia already has a content guideline explaining when a source may be considered as wp:unreliable: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.. Since Xhufi is known for having a poor reputation for fact-checking, for historical revisionism (see wp:pseudoscience), and is also known for espousing extremist views. IMO, Wikipedia ought to bar citing him in the following cases: 1) when a topic area is sensitive and related to these ethnicities that were subject to Xhufi's extremist views, and, 2) when no third-party sources could wp:verify Xhufi's claims, 3) when there is no wp:consensus for using him. Currently, all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have been violated, and Xhufi is remaining on all of these aforementioned articles despite wp:consensus policy stating that: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.. I am hopeful the DRN can help resolve the dispute around Xhufi's reliability, because the RSN didn't help. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Pellumb Xhufi discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth Statement by Moderator on Pellumb Xhufi

I am willing to try to conduct moderated discussion. This will be somewhat different from other matters that I have moderated, so the rules and procedures will be somewhat different. I have two questions for the editors, both for those who have responded to the notice and for any other editors. First, do the editors agree that there is an issue about the reliability of Pellumb Xhufi? Second, are there any other issues? Answer the questions in the space below. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to me as the representative of the community. Be civil and concise. If there is agreement, I will then create a subpage for this discussion and provide a set of rules for the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Zeroth Statements by Editors on Pellumb Xhufi

• Yes I do agree. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

First Statement by Moderator

I am providing a subpage for this discussion. It is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi . All further discussion should be conducted there. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the question is whether and when the writings of Pellumb Xhufi are considered a reliable source. Please read the policy on reliable sources again. Please also read the rules. Editors are responsible for compliance with the rules.

Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion except in the space provided. Elsewhere, address your comments to the moderator and the community.

I am asking each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to what they think the source reliability issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Seventh Statement by Moderator (Xhufi)

There have been no recent comments by the editors, and no updates to my machine-translated draft of a BLP of Draft:Pellumb Xhufi. If there are no further comments, we can either close this dispute, if the controversy over the use of Xhufi as a source has gone away, or we can get ready to start an RFC at the reliable source noticeboard. However, I will first advise the editors who wish to use Xhufi as a source that they will have a stronger argument if there is a BLP of Pellumb Xhufi in the English Wikipedia. Each editor may make an additional statement at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi, or ask any questions in the next 48 hours, after which point I will decide what the next steps are. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Star Control

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by ERegion on 20:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Star Control (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• ERegion (talk · contribs)
• Jorahm (talk · contribs)
• EggsHam (talk · contribs)
• Shooterwalker (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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?

Talk:Star Control § Official website

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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.[20] 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.[21] 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.[22] 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)

--EggsHam (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Shooterwalker

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)

Star Control discussion

Well-meaning effort. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 29 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.

Do the editors want to participate in moderated discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

Comment on content, not contributors. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I am willing to provided there is no further vitriol directed at me by the other editor. ERegion (talk) 14:24, 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[23] (summarized at Publishing#Legal_issues). Secondly Atari never controlled the right to distribute the games.[24](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.[25] 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)

I agree to the mediation. Things are going to be a little busy for me until early November but I'll do my best to check in. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

First statement by moderator on Star Control

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.

The single sentence question is: Does adding the game's homepage improves the article's quality? (ERegion (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC))

• 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.

• Eggsham wrote a compromise version.[26]
• Eggsham removed a primary source, understanding Wikipedia policy, and my concern.[27]
• Jorham did some legal wrangling.[28]
• I made some copyedits for concision and to support consensus.[29]

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[30] since they arrived on the web.[31][32] 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[33] 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[34] and GOG[35] 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[36]. 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)[37]. There was a dispute over whether those rights included the right to publish the original series[38] with the result being Stardock does have those rights[39]. 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))

Back-and-forth discussion on Star Control

Distraction. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 29 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.

Craffael.09 (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• 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[40] 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.[41][42][43] Stardock only owns the complete rights to Star Control: Origins,[44] and the use of the name "Star Control". This is verified in several reliable secondary sources[45][46] and was later agreed to by both parties after a confusing lawsuit.[47] 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.[[48] 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.[49] We should also consider other sites devoted to the original series such as the reddit[50] and twitter,[51] 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[52]. 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[53]. 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.

  ERegion (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

  The third party sources explicitly say that the first Star Control game is owned by the original developers,[54] 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.

Jorahm (talk · contribs) ERegion (talk · contribs) EggsHam (talk · contribs) Shooterwalker (talk · contribs)

The consensus is as followed  : I think the link to Stardock must be added because Stardock actually owns the rights to StarControl.

Please reply with Agree or Disagree followed by a short explenation why you chose this response. Craffael.09 (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

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,[55][56] and this is even confirmed in the copyright registry as a primary source.[57] 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[58] 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[59] and GOG[60] 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)[61]. They also received the publishing rights. There was a dispute over whether the publishing rights were included.[62]. The result of that dispute was that Stardock has those rights[63]. 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[64] 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.

Unsigned statement by User:EggsHam

• 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[65][66]. 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.[67] They are verified in secondary sources as the official site according to Gamespy[68] and was actually first original website listed at this article.[69] 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)

Slavery in Afghanistan

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by RPI2026F1 on 20:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Slavery in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• RPI2026F1 (talk · contribs)
• Aciram (talk · contribs)
• Minahatithan (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

One user is attempting to remove information about a group of people being enslaved after a civil uprising. He has already broken the 3RR once, but after the block, the dispute has stayed on the talk page only. A second user is claiming that the first user has a bias against the article while the first user claims that there is no such bias.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Slavery_in_Afghanistan#Biased,_unnecessary_and_unsourced_content

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

An uninvolved third-party might help to identify which editor is in the wrong and if the article really is discriminatory or not.

Summary of dispute by Aciram

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The article describe how many of the Hazara people were enslaved following the uprising of the 1890s, and were still enslaved when slavery was abolished 30 years later. User Minahatithan have stated that they are themselwes Hazara, and that they find it to be shameful and disonorable against the Hazara to mention the above in the article. I have tried to explain that feelings such as shame, honor, dishonor and the reputation of an ethnic group has no place when discussing what should and should not be in an article, but without success. I no longer have the energy to keep explaining this, since I have neither the time nor the energy. Please view the discussion page of the article: User Minahatithan continue to talk about the honor of an ethnic group in almost every post. Because of this attitude, they appear biased, and not to be a suitable editor of this article. Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Minahatithan

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

In the article, some contents without evidence and sources are mentioned about Hazara, which do not tell us the truth. Sources and evidence about the Hazaras are only in (1888–1893 Hazara uprisings) In 1888–1893 about 60% of them were massacred and some were enslaved and emigrants. I don't know why User:Aciram has taken a hard position about Hazaras and acts very emotional, accusing me of rudeness, shame about some cases and biased, while I didn't say anything disrespectful or offensive to them. And now User:Aciram has added some sources in the article that contradict the contents of the article. While the slaves in Afghanistan never had a specific ethnicity, we should not express information without evidence and sources about a group of people based on our judgment. Thanks--Minahatithan (talk) 14:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Slavery in Afghanistan discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

• A revert was made by @Minahatithan: this morning which was reverted by @Aciram:. Both users had been engaged in an edit war before and @Minahatithan: has been blocked before on the same article for edit warring. It seems to be undoing an edit that was undone during the previous rounds of edit warring. No consensus had been reached on the article talk page at the time of the edit. RPI2026F1 (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

RPI2026F1, I didn't make the first changes in the article until dispute resolution is over, but I prevented those changes from being done. I have also provided my explanation of reverting to the edit summary. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• Hi everyone ! I am the DRN volunteer that will now make this dicussion come to a fair consensus. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to post them on this discussion or my talk page. :) Craffael.09 (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

First statement by moderator on Afghan slavery

I am opening this case for moderated discussion. 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 do not claim to have any particular knowledge about the topic of slavery in Afghanistan. I expect the editors and the article to provide that knowledge to me, as the article should for the readers.

The zeroth question is: Do all the editors agree to take part in moderated discussion?

The first request is that I am asking each editor to state, in one or two paragraphs, what they want changed in the article (and where in the article), or what they want kept the same if another editor wants to change it. First we should know what content is in dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Statement 1.1 by moderator (Afghan slavery)

Please state, in one or two paragraphs, what you want changed in the article, and where in the article, or what you want kept the same if another editor wants to change it.

If the editors do not answer within 24 hours, I will close this case (and the editors will have accomplished nothing). Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

First statements by editors on Afghan slavery

Reply to question nr 1: I must be frank and reply that I do not have the time to participate in a long discussion. This has already taken too much time, and I am busy in my offline life. Since this has already started, I will nevertheless post my reply below, but I simply can not give too much time to this issue.

Reply to question nr 2: I want to keep some facts in the article. Another editor wish to remove them, as far as I have understood, for reasons of honor/dishonor. The facts in question are as following:

Fact 1) After the Hazara Uprising of the 1880s-1890s, many Hazara were enslaved. This is referenced in the article, and also described here: [70], [71], [72], [73], p 60, [74], p 102, [75] p 90, [76], p 80-81,

Fact 2) Hazara people were still kept in slavery in the 20th-century. This is referenced in the article and also described in [77], [78], p 75,[79], [80], [81] p 90, [82], p 80-81,

Fact 3) At the time when slavery was abolished in Afghanistan in the 1920s, many of the slaves were Hazara (Indeed, in many of the books, slaves seem to be equalled to Hazara, but the article does not say so). This is referenced in the article and also described in: [83], [84], p 75, [85], [86], p 60, [87], p 102, [88] p 90, [89], p 80-81,

The above facts are the disputed ones, as far as I understand. The reason I wish to keep them in the article is simply because they appear to be facts. I am aware that I have been accused of having some sort of ethnic prejudice, but I barely know anything about these ethnic groups and are only interested in the facts of slavery in Afghanistan, and so this belong to the subject of the article. That is why I whish to keep it there. Thank you.--Aciram (talk) 20:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

• Question #0: I will take part in moderated discussion. I am pretty busy this week in real life, so I might be slow to respond. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• Question #1: I am only trying to reword the lead to make sure it gives equal weight to the entire article and I wanted to reword a sentence that mentions an ethnicity of slave masters which was unverified. I do not want to touch the sentence talking about who was enslaved. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The sources you provided are quite acceptable, but they are still not quite on the topic we are arguing about. Please do not mention the stories of Khaled Hosseini as evidence and truth. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator on Afghan slavery

The two editors who have replied do not appear to have any significant disagreement as to article content. Aciram opposes certain changes, and so wants to leave those parts of the article as they are. User:RPI2026F1 wants to make a change to the wording of the lede. Please specify exactly what the change is. I thought that the reason for this discussion was a disagreement with User:Minihatithan, who has not edited in the past four days.

I will leave this discussion open for about two more days to see if Minihatithan responds, or if the two other editors have any disagreements between them. If there is no response, I will close this discussion and provide closing comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Second statements by editors on Afghan slavery

My disagreements come with what @Minahatithan wants to change. I think he's overstepping and deleting important parts of the article. RPI2026F1 (talk) 11:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

My disagreements come with what @Minahatithan wants to change, which are the facts I presented above. Me and RPI2026F1 have largely been in agreement, and have agreed on some changes in the article. It is the changes Minahatithan which to make which are the origin of this dispute. I have the impression Minahatithan which to remove things because of ethnic bias, and that they should therefore be blocked from editing this specific article. This conclusion is drawn from the statements made by Minahatithan on the discussion page of the article. --Aciram (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Note; it would be a shame if this discussion was close before a reply from Minahatithan. User Minahatithan are often gone for days at the time, and will then return to the article Slavery in Afghanistan, where many attempts to reach an agreement in this issue has failed. If this is not adressed somehow, then that article discussion may never end. It does need some sort of solution. It would be a very positive thing if the discussion could be left open until Minahatithan replied. --Aciram (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I do agree, as they seem to only post once a week or so, but when they do they'll be very active for a day or two. RPI2026F1 (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

RPI2026F1, I never deleted the important and major part of the article, you can see my edits in the article. What I want to delete is a minor and even unnecessary matter, and it also has no source and evidence. I have explained this many times, but I don't know why no one pays attention. Minahatithan (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

RPI2026F1, What you say is important, this is [90] which is not very important and helpful for Wikipedia and is unlikely to be true and also without evidence and source. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Third statement by moderator on Afghan slavery

I have posted to the user talk page of User:Minihatithan, to ask whether they are willing to take part in moderated discussion. As requested by the other editors, I will leave this discussion open for three or four more days to see if Minihatithan responds. I am reminding User:Minihatithan that they should either discuss the article, here at DRN, or leave the article alone.

In the meantime, if the other editors want to improve the article, they may do so. We won't hold up normal editing any further because of an intermittent editor.

If I close this discussion due to no response by Minihatithan, I will do so with an opinion that they should not edit the article without discussing it first, and that editing without discussion is considered disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, sorry for the late reply due to my busy schedule. Content is written in the article, which is unlikely to be true because there are no sources to support it. And the article should be edited and some cleaning done. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The reason for the editorial controversy in this article [91] - [92] was based on its truth because the content of the edit, one of which was just made by the User:Aciram, contradicted to its source (sources). The purpose of my arguments in this matter were these things. Thanks! Minahatithan (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Fourth statement by moderator on Afghan slavery

What I can understand at this point is that User:Minihatithan made an edit that was reverted. Other than that, they have not said enough to permit dispute resolution. They have written that the article should be edited and cleaned up. That is not sufficient information to resolve a content dispute. Please read Be Specific at DRN. It also appears that Minihatithan edits intermittently, and does not have time to discuss their edits. If an editor does not stay active long enough to discuss their edits, they should expect that their edits will be reverted. If I have to close this case due to poor response, I will advise the other editors that they may revert any edits by Minihatithan. I don't like this, but making edits and not being available to discuss them is not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon: Again, sorry for the delay in answering and discussing. Minahatithan (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, The purpose of cleaned up is to remove some false, unsourced and unnecessary contents, which are not good and suitable for the article. Why are there such false contents in the article? User:Aciram has entered into an editorial war with me. User:Aciram doesn't care much about those contents of the article, but is against me. Regards! Minahatithan (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

If User:Minihatithan wants to continue to take part in dispute resolution, I am asking them to provide a list of edits that they think should be made to the article, and to state how often they can expect to respond to questions. They haven't yet responded adequately to my questions. Their most recent response is fragmentary, and not an adequate basis for discussion. If they do not have time to provide a list of requested edits and a schedule, then I will have to close this case. If so, I will advise them to avoid this article, and advise the other editors to revert their edits.

So, User:Minihatithan: Can you provide a list of proposed edits (not just diffs) with rationale, and a schedule? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, This edit is better and more appropriate because some of the incorrect contents, which was also incorrect in its sources, is removed. Only the unsourced and unnecessary contents have been removed and modified. Thanks--Minahatithan (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

West Herzegovina Canton

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Aaron Liu on 16:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• West Herzegovina Canton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Santasa99 (talk · contribs)
• Governor Sheng (talk · contribs)
• Aaron Liu (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Disagreement over whether or not the flag and coat of arms(referred to as the symbols) of the canton are official and whether or not they should be included in the infobox. The parts of the canton’s constitution that used to define these symbols were deemed unconstitutional by the constitutional court in 1998. The canton then amended the constitution to address the ruling in 2000, and defined the symbols in local law in 2003. There is dispute over whether the 2003 law is legal or not i.e. whether or not the 1998 ruling annuls the 2003 law. The 2003 law can be found at the canton's official website. The 1998 ruling has been linked below.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:West Herzegovina Canton#Flag

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide opinions that can help us reach consensus

Summary of dispute by Santasa99

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Highest interpreter of laws and constitutionality in every normal country is Constitutional court. In 1997 Constitutional court has ruled that symbols are unconstitutional, and provision of that ruling is clear: 1) ruling and provisions for the Canton 10 (Hercegbosanska županija); 2 ruling and provisions for the Canton West Herzegovina (Zapadnohercegovačka županija).

Secondary sources report on most recent various reactions (political parties, MP's, etc) confirming illegality of forced usage : Livno-Online, Mayor of the local municipality, RTRS, Federalna RTV, SrpskaInfo

Now, we have editors who want to include them into Infobox as representative illustration where the official symbols should stand. They say that after the Constitutional court rules symbols unconstitutional, local ethno-nationalists in local governing bodies can just walk away back to their local institutions and enact "new" law with the exact same substance by playing tricks with protocol numbers and dates, and thus bypass the Constitutional court ruling, as if the court is not highest interpreter of law and constitution. What they actually say is that locals can simply fool full the highest court in the land by walking them in circles - court rules the symbols unconstitutional, local change few letters and hyphenations put the new protocol number and date and voila, Constitutional court has to rule again.

The most worrying aspect of this dispute is that editor(s) insists on symbols which were obviously deemed unconstitutional, and on the basis of discrimination of other two constituent peoples at that. Forced usage makes two things evident: that ethno-nationalist bickering at the local level, where one majority discriminate against other two, is nothing short of breaking the law and disrespect for both the Constitution and Constitutional court (ruling); the other is that the country is sometimes unable to enforce the rule of law, or most of the time. The symbols are used only by these two cantons, wherever and whenever they can, but as we can see from links, not without outcry of various concerned parties and players, and no other instance of government is recognizing them in other official instances (institutions, documents, etc.).

Summary of dispute by Governor Sheng

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I claim that Željko Heimer and the valid cantonal law are sufficient sources for the cantonal flag to be considered official. The dispute arose after User Santasa99 asserted that the Constitutional Court made a decision on the Constitution of the Canton in 1998 and declared the constitutional provisions on the flag invalid. However, the law we are discussing was adopted in 2003 and is not covered by the decision of the Constitutional Court from 1998, which exclusively discussed the cantonal constitution, but not the cantonal law.

At first, Santasa99 rejected Heimer as a reliable source, then he claimed that the canton fraudulently passed the law out of nationalistic impulses. And he claims - although without a source - that the decision of the Constitutional Court from 1998, which discussed one matter, suddenly refers to another matter voted in 2003. I consider such a stance to be original research, and us such, not allowed at Wikipedia.

User Aaron Liu provided a third opinion, stating that the flag should be included in the infobox and considers it to be official. Their third opinion wasn't taken into account by Santasa99. --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

West Herzegovina Canton discussion

• Hi everyone ! I am the DRN volunteer that is here to bring a conslusion on the matter. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to post them on this discussion or on my talk page Craffael.09 (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

First statements by editors on West Herzegovina Canton

The canton then amended the constitution and defined the symbols in local law in 2003. The symbols stayed the same, the amended law did not change anything of concern to that Constitutional court ruling; whatever they changed did not amend concerns from the Constitutional court provision. Not to mention that we have no information on why the local canton's law is amended in the first place, maybe they had no intention to amend concerns from the provision at all. There is dispute over whether the 2003 law is legal or not. No, dispute is about the Constitutional court 1997/98 ruling and is it relevant regarding the symbols abused by two cantons, which obviously is relevant (I quoted provision that specifically tackle what, and how, and why are symbols problematic and unconstitutional in TP discussion). As if the court is really a bunch of inapt lawyers, who while writing their ruling could not foresee any future manipulations and trickery, who could not understand what the real concern is in the first place - the symbols which discriminate against other constituent peoples, and are thus against the country's constitution.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No, dispute is about the Constitutional court 1997/98 ruling and is it relevant Isn't that exactly the same as whether or not the 2003 law is legal? Your argument is that the 1997/98 ruling annuls the 2003 law, if I recall correctly Aaron Liu (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, they obviously didn't bother to amend what Cc found in violation of the Constitution, did they. The unconstitutional symbols stayed the same, or you think locals can play the Cc for fools. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

By the way, what you are talking about is not the law, there is no new law, those are some amandmants on the same constitution of that canton. And they left out symbols, which they didn't bother to amend per ruling of the Cc ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It is a law, it's literally called "Law on the use of the coat of arms and flag of the County of West Herzegovina" (Zakon o uporabi grba i zastave Županije Zapadnohercegovačke) Aaron Liu (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

All right, it's a law, the links earlier provided in TP directed to the constitution of the canton. But, that's not important, what's important is does that law tackle what Constitutional court found in violation with a state constitution, or is it simply (re)written in complete disregard for that Cc 1997/98 ruling, just with a new protocol number and date. (Ruling is clear and can't be disputed here on wikipedia as a source, nor is it disputed in that country as evident from those links above.) ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Ruling can't be disputed but interpretations can and need a source. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

You got the secondary sources, as an interpretation by various actors and reported by state media - I intentionally used state media with a base in all three peoples' majority areas (Serb, Croat and Bosniak), although Federal RTV is run by both Croats and Bosniaks and current director is appointee of Croatian HDZ party, the same political party which is responsible for misuse of symbols in those cantons. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I'll review them. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

They did. See amendments 15~16, published 2000 Aaron Liu (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

How? By reusing the same discriminatory symbols? Symbols which are created to reflect only one peoples tradition and discriminate against other two constituent peoples, which is exactly what 97/98 ruling is all about and what makes them against the state constitution. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Santasa99 (talk · contribs) did not at all demonstrate that the flag of the Canton 10 is unconstitutional, nor could they. You will notice that the secondary sources they used to talk about the issues Canton 10 is having. Thus, his point is complete the target. Canton 10 is a separate canton, and there were two separate rulings by the Constitutional Court. Canton 10 failed to adapt its constitution, while the West Herzegovina Canton followed the court's decision and made amendments. Santasa99 is misrepresenting sources in this case. Santasa99, can you find any source stating that the flag of the West Herzegovina Canton is unconstitutional, or you can provide only the sources talking about a completely different canton? --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Same flag, same symbols, and the same Cc ruling for both cantons (links above). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

And you fail to argue how the law we're discussing is not in force? The provisions of the cantonal constitutions were *deleted* by the court. This is not the case regarding the 2003 law we're discussing. It's valid. Governor Sheng (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

First consensus and vote

• After reading the arguments and visiting the concerned pages, I have come to a first consensus. We shall vote on it, and if everyone agrees, then I will close this ase as resolved.

Santasa99 (talk · contribs) Aaron Liu (talk · contribs) Governor Sheng (talk · contribs)

The consensus is as follows : Taking in the different facts, I think we must not add the symbols iin the infobox but mention the lawsuit and different info on the subject in the article.

You are asked to vote Agree or Disagree followed by the reason of your choice.

Craffael.09 (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Agree, that is always most appropriate way, when facing this very particular kind of situation.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• Partly Disagree. I think everyone can agree that the lawsuit and different info should be included in the article, but me and Governor Sheng still think that the symbols should be added in the infobox. The argument that the local government defined the symbols in a law and no new constitutional rulings have discussed it is not an interpretation but the argument that the previous court ruling applies to the current law is an interpretation.Aaron Liu (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  This is the second time you speak in G.Sheng's name, how you do that? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  I can guess. There isn't any new stuff other than the sources you brought up and unless it is extremely indisputable they won't change their opinion. The source isn't indisputable as it talks about Canton 10 which displayed an incredibly similar flag. They are different flags though. You can see that the chains here are white. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  It's same flag, same symbols, and the same Cc ruling for both cantons (links above). ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  But I couldn't find any evidence that canton 10 also amended the constitution the same way as west .. did Aaron Liu (talk) 03:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  Neither did the West Herzegovina canton amend the concerns raised by the Constitutional court rulings - discriminatory symbols remained. The rest I explained several times - the Constitutional court has ruled on symbols as they are designed in certain way which is against the state constitution, and it does not need to come up with a new ruling every time someone change the date on the local law. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  What I mean is West amended their constitution to move the flag to a law while canton 10 didn't. While I agree that this is trickery, that's my original research interpretation, and to put that interpretation into the article requires secondary sources. Also, the flags are slightly different. Canton 10's flag has a white chain while the symbols have a gold chain. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Disagree. The symbols are official. The fact is that the constitutional court didn't even discuss the law we're talking about and we cannot know the position of the court as it stands to know, we can only guess. However, this would constitute original research. The law itself is completely valid and in force by every criterion. Also, the fact that Santasa99 was unable to find secondary sources to prove his point – all the secondary sources he mentioned talk about different Canton with separate issues – is evidence good enough that the flags are actually official and constitutional. Everything else is indeed just their original research. For example, the same criteria Santasa99 is using here could be used at Posavina Canton. The flag of Posavina doesn't represent the Serbs, and thus one could say it's discriminatory and just remove it and explain their edit with the 1998 decision of the constitutional court. But, that would be hardly imaginable as it would be and is - original research. --Governor Sheng (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  I don't need to provide more then I provided by linking Cc decisions, I used media just to direct neutral and uninvolved editors to the factual situation on the ground. It is usually your burden to provide reliable secondary sources when you want to include something into the article - rest of your post is misdirection. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

  And I have. I have presented reliable secondary sources. And yes, the secondary sources you provided do not discuss the same issue as we do, and they are misleading. You failed to find a single article mentioning the flag of the West Herzegovina Canton being unconstitutional, but you found a bunch for another canton that failed to amend its constitution. Why is that I wonder? Governor Sheng (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Now that the vote is done, I have a clear idea about where we're heading. Now, let's take it down a notch and try to make everyone agree. I want ONE user from each side of the conflict write a SHORT paragraph where they will try to prove why they're right by adding reliable sources, link to WP policies,etc... Craffael.09 (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Here is a nice compilation of the constitution and amendments translated into English from the OHR, an official BH office. It states that the constitutional ruling declared articles 8~10, which define the symbols, to be unconstitutional. However, article 7, which states that the canton has symbols, has not been declared unconstitutional. The canton amended their constitution in 2000 to address the ruling, and removed articles 8~10, while changing article 7 to say the symbols will be defined in the law of the canton. Three years later they published a law that defined the symbols. Both the amendment and the law haven't been challenged by the Const. Court, so I believe the symbols are constitutional and official. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Highest interpreter of law(s) and constitutionality in every normal country is Constitutional court. In 1997 Constitutional court has ruled that symbols are unconstitutional, not law or some article (primary source(s)) that talks about them or some later amendment(s), but specificity of these symbols design as they are conceived and described to represent only one constituent people. The Constitutional court clearly described them as discriminatory on that ground, discriminating against other constituent peoples, which brings them in conflict whit the state constitution, and regardless how many new versions of the local laws and amendments canton is willing to enact, as long as they continue to refuse to alleviate / respond to what was Constitutional court main concern, as worded in their ruling, these symbols remain unconstitutional and illegal. Original ruling and provisions are clear about thet: 1) ruling and provisions for the Canton 10 (Hercegbosanska županija); 2 ruling and provisions for the Canton West Herzegovina (Zapadnohercegovačka županija).

Secondary sources report on most recent various reactions (political parties, MP's, etc) confirming illegality of forced usage: Livno-Online, Mayor of the local municipality, RTRS, Federalna RTV, SrpskaInfo.

Constitutional court is not a bunch of inapt 2nd grade lawyers, who while writing their ruling could not foresee any future manipulations and trickery, who were unable to tackle exactly what the problem was/is. Like in ever normal country, Constitutional court ruling is very much clear and definite, and they do not need to come up with a new ruling every time someone gets a wild idea that facelifting of the problematic law/article, while refusing to tackle and change the essence of the problem, will somehow be enough to screw with the Constitutional court and higher levels of government and bypass its ruling with ease.

Last but not least - how Aaron and Sheng intend to present secondary sources against the definite ruling of the highest court in the land? Which secondary source could exert such power and influence to invalidate one country's Constitutional court ruling, so that we as a project should have every right to dismiss it? Until this point, these two editors have only primary source(s) in form of official local websites/documents. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, you cannot use sources for canton 10, which hasn't amended its constitution to remove articles 8~10 which were deemed unconstitutional, to say that the flag of West .. Canton is unconstitutional. Only interpretations of laws and rulings. (e.g. the claim that even after the law and amendments the flag isn't const.) I'm also pretty sure we were tasked to write a short paragraph. Aaron Liu (talk) 10:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I need to intervene here. Santasa is plainly wrong. The constitutional court deemed certain provisions of the cantonal constitution as unconstitutional, not symbols themselves – ("It is established that the arts 8, 9, 10 and 30 of the Constitution of the West Herzegovina Canton are not in the accordance with the Constitution of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Utvrđuje se da čl. 8, 9, 10. i 30. Ustava Zapadnoherce­govačkog kantona ("Narodne novine Županije Zapadnoherce­govačke", broj 1/96), nisu u skladu s Ustavom Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine.). Otherwise, the flag itself would be banned which is not the case at all!

Second, although the Constitutional Court is the interpreter of the law, the constitutional court never discussed the law we're discussing here, therefore the constitutional court didn't have a say in this matter.

Third, the explanation of the court's decision is what it is, but it was limited exclusively to the cantonal constitution. If we're gonna play lawyers here no court is allowed to discuss beyond the limit of the claim itself - this is the principle of every legal system, and so is of the Bosnian one (Art. 2 Law on Civil Procedure of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina). But, since we're not gonna play lawyers we're bound only by the rules of Wikipedia. And the most relevant here is WP:OR. In short - you need to prove that the court's decision that was limited to the cantonal constitution encompasses all future laws. Not only that, but such rule doesn't exist in ANY legal system in the world.

Fourth, the decisions of the courts may be as they are, but God knows that the court mustn't make the same decision in every similar case (for example the issue of slavery in the United States). Santasa here uses original research for the second time claiming that the court would make the same decision over and over again, which is also against WP:CRYSTALBALL.

The Constitutional Court isn't a bunch of second-class lawyers, but the Constitutional Court is not obliged to make the same decision over and over again, especially so because they're actually appointed by politicians. Not that I'm judging their credibility in general, but they're not so fine and dandy.

And last but not least - you don't actually have the decision of the constitutional court as your source - because such decision wasn't made - it does not exist. And Željko Heimer, whom I mentioned on the relevant talk page is a very good secondary source actually. Santsa is actually claiming that a credible and reliable source - Željko Heimer is wrong and that the existing law is not in force – all of this without any backup whatsoever, except their own interpretation of things, which is a school example of original research. Governor Sheng (talk) 22:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Mary, Queen of Scots

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:E8C5:7383:9B84:E222 on 15:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Mary, Queen of Scots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Celia Homeford (talk · contribs)
• Deb (talk · contribs)
• GoodDay (talk · contribs)
• EmilySarah99 (talk · contribs)
• DrKay (talk · contribs)
• Johnbod (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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?

Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots#Mary I

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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).

Summary of dispute by DrKay

Opening party is a SPA obsessed by a single character. DrKay (talk) 16:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Taht is not a valid summary, DrKay. Take example on the one written by EmilySarah99 and GoodDay. Craffael.09 (talk) 22:58, 30 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)

• See the comment for DrKay Craffael.09 (talk) 22:58, 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. ” — WP:SPATG

Aaron Liu (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

There are over 50 edits. All on the same topic. DrKay (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

Don't lie. It's foolish to do so when everyone can see the edits. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 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 ridiculous. All the edits on this IP range since June are the same editor. That is self-evident. DrKay (talk) 20:44, 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)

It's the same IP editing Pillar box and Pillar Box War. The two issues are obviously connected. DrKay (talk) 20:55, 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.

And as for pillar boxes, I am guilty of uploading images to articles and editing their infoboxes, including to Crown of Scotland, Royal Observer Corps, Rock Ptarmigan, Vipera berus and other edits to articles consisting mostly of grammar corrections, general housekeeping, and image uploads, and to my knowledge yours is the only revert of any such edit. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:AD1F:35A3:62FC:80CD (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain why you're so obsessed with me and a single edit that I made to one character? DrKay (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

Also, I believe we should just stop for now and wait for a volunteer.Aaron Liu (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you kind of were supposed to wait, but it's okay. Craffael.09 (talk) 22:58, 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… )

Now, anybody care to discuss the proposed change and (any) solution to the current impasse? Or do we go round in circles discussing my previous edits on a now defunct user account? 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:AD1F:35A3:62FC:80CD (talk) 22:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

...How? Aaron Liu (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Response to User:Johnbod. I agree that WP:COMMONNAMES should apply, and indeed all sections of Wikipedia:Article titles. However, this discussion does NOT concern “Article titles”, but rather the absence of an ordinal number in the infobox header. There is no attempt to change the article title but to address an omission/perceived inconsistency. (For those who seek to play the man, not the ball simply because I lack a moniker/pseudonym, kindly refer to Wikipedia:Assume good faith in addition to Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Thank you). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:AD1F:35A3:62FC:80CD (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

• Okay everyone. I am the mediator for this conflict. I hope that we can all come to an agreement peacefully. Craffael.09 (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for volunteering - hopefully we won’t take up too much of your time. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:E509:812F:E048:6334 (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

;) 23:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

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.

Craffael.09 (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Except Elizabeth II had a different numbering system. She was under Churchill’s convention. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

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 hits on Google, 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 think you misunderstood “short” but I guess this works. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry… (read quick…) 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:7C86:7B9B:E5E6:69DC (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:9C6:C0C2:E948:7B1B (talk)

Kenneth I of Scotland, Donald I of Scotland, Constantine I of Scotland, ....

Yes, do look at those 146,000 ghits: 90% of them, and almost 100% of the reliable ones, relate to Mary I of England. DrKay (talk) 21:48, 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…

“Mary I, Queen of Scots”: https://www.google.com/search?q=+%22mary+I%2C+queen+of+scots%22&sxsrf=ALiCzsYg5KCldeGVThcvkcnathXhRAAUIQ%3A1667377577878&source=hp&ei=qSliY42vM4vMgAaSx4qIBA&iflsig=AJiK0e8AAAAAY2I3udjYekwF_j_bmwHrL9zXPyWUENwo&ved=0ahUKEwjNp-_BiY_7AhULJsAKHZKjAkEQ4dUDCBI&uact=5&oq=+%22mary+I%2C+queen+of+scots%22&gs_lp=Egdnd3Mtd2l6uAED-AEBMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB4yBhAAGBYYHjIGEAAYFhgeMgYQABgWGB7CAgQQLhgnwgIEECMYJ8ICBxAuGNQCGEPCAgQQLhhDwgIEEAAYQ8ICERAuGIAEGLEDGIMBGMcBGNEDwgILEC4YgAQYsQMY1ALCAg0QLhiABBiHAhjUAhgUwgIFEAAYgATCAgUQLhiABMICCBAuGIAEGLEDwgILEC4YgAQYsQMYgwHCAgUQLhiRAsICChAuGIAEGIcCGBRI1WBQAFiGVnADeADIAQCQAQCYAawBoAHgE6oBBTE1LjEw&sclient=gws-wiz = “About 15,600 results”

“Mary I, Queen of Scotland”: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mary+I%2C+queen+of+scotland%22&sxsrf=ALiCzsZLgZHL5JBEEilp-Kwlw_VVSvW4zQ%3A1667377593554&ei=uSliY6C7IauEhbIPu9OfuAg&ved=0ahUKEwjg-63JiY_7AhUrQkEAHbvpB4cQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22mary+I%2C+queen+of+scotland%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnC4AQP4AQEyBhAAGAgYHjIFEAAYhgMyBRAAGIYDMgUQABiGAzIFEAAYhgMyBRAAGIYDwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICBhAAGAcYHsICCBAAGAgYBxgekAYISLIsUPYOWNMccAF4AcgBAJABAJgBY6ABqQOqAQE14gMEIE0YAeIDBCBBGADiAwQgRhgAiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp = “About 10,500 results”

”Mary I of Scots”: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mary+I+of+scots%22&sxsrf=ALiCzsaBvKBmAoYk9u1XTnK6hVcpHG8Sig%3A1667377735529&ei=RypiY_b5H8eLgQa2oonIDw&ved=0ahUKEwi2uYeNio_7AhXHRcAKHTZRAvkQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22mary+I+of+scots%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnC4AQP4AQEyBhAAGAgYHjIGEAAYCBgeMgYQABgIGB4yBhAAGAgYHjIGEAAYCBgeMgYQABgIGB4yBhAAGAgYHjIFEAAYhgMyBRAAGIYDMgUQABiGA8ICChAAGEcY1gQYsAPCAggQABgIGAcYHsICBBAAGB7CAgYQABgHGB6QBgRI4D9Q6QhY9TpwAXgAyAEAkAEAmAF8oAHXCKoBBDEwLjPiAwQgTRgB4gMEIEEYAOIDBCBGGACIBgE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp = “About 53,400 results” = “About 12 results” ???

”Mary I of Scotland”: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mary+I+of+scotland%22&sxsrf=ALiCzsYDlNl2r5OngVTVBDwKOvVDMknDsw%3A1667378456262&ei=GC1iY4TSD4rdgAbJ9bj4Cg&ved=0ahUKEwiEvt3kjI_7AhWKLsAKHck6Dq8Q4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=%22mary+I+of+scotland%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnC4AQP4AQEyBBAAGB4yBhAAGAgYHjIFEAAYhgMyBRAAGIYDMgUQABiGAzIFEAAYhgMyBRAAGIYDwgIKEAAYRxjWBBiwA8ICBhAAGAcYHsICCBAAGAgYBxgekAYESIgYUNoMWKoUcAF4AcgBAJABAJgBfaABowOqAQM0LjHiAwQgTRgB4gMEIEEYAOIDBCBGGACIBgE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp = “About 66,000 results”

A lesson for me in taking numbers of returns to a search term on Google at face value. My apologies. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:9C6:C0C2:E948:7B1B (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

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. Celia Homeford (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC):

• 72 ghits for Mary I, Queen of Scots, only a handful of which are reliable
• 37 ghits for Mary I, Queen of Scotland, only one of which is reliable
• 12 ghits for Mary I of Scots, none reliable

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)

Note: I've changed the Elizabeth of Scotland redirect to a disambiguation page for clarity. Goodness knows how it got there. Deb (talk) 09:35, 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)

Padre Pio

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by SanctumRosarium on 15:47, 31 October 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. Location of dispute Padre Pio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved SanctumRosarium (talk · contribs) Mr. bobby (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The dispute is about the lead section of the article. It seems that the lead can be improved in various ways in accordance with official standards and recommendations. However any attempts to change the lead in the past weeks have been reverted on the grounds of catholic point of view. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:Padre Pio#Changed introduction of the article Talk:Padre Pio#Lead section How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? You can explain whether the proposed changes in the lead section are written from a neutral point of view or from a catholic point of view. Summary of dispute by Mr. bobby Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Padre Pio 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.

Multi-level marketing

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by DeknMike on 03:07, 1 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. Location of dispute Multi-level marketing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved DeknMike (talk · contribs) MrOllie (talk · contribs) Dispute overview The MLM page is biased anti-MLM, using 20-year-old self-published sources. I have been trying to update the page, using broad-based sources, including FTC definitions and distinctions between legal and illegal practices. User MrOllie has set an auto bot to revert new content and refuses to discuss the updates on the talk page. Note this page has a long history of other users trying to make it more neutral, without success. Tonite's edit was reverted without checking that it was directly sourced from a book cited elsewhere in the article, and the FTC. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Multi-level_marketing&action=edit&section=5 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Multi-level_marketing&action=edit&section=8 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Multi-level_marketing&action=edit&section=9 How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Allow neutral edits to be made, and block MrOllie from crying 'vandalism' when it doesn't match an anti-MLM mantra. Summary of dispute by MrOllie Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Multi-level marketing 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.

Book of Daniel

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Billyball998 on 11:37, 2 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. Location of dispute Book of Daniel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Billyball998 (talk · contribs) Bennv123 (talk · contribs) Dumuzid (talk · contribs) tgeorgescu (talk · contribs) Dispute overview We are discussing if something can be treated as a fact if there is a "scholarly consensus" of it, and if there is a scholarly consensus, do other positions not have the right to be mentioned? I'm hoping someone intelligent who has a good understanding of the NPOV can weigh in for me. I have a feeling as soon as I make an edit the gentleman will undo it. How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? "Consensus?" question at the bottom. Thank you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Book_of_Daniel How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? I would just like someone who has a good understanding of the NPOV to read our dialogue and explain, to either me or him, that we are misunderstanding, Thank you! okay my apologies, it seemed as if you were planning on not letting it through. Either way another experienced view commenting would be very nice to clear up our dispute Billyball998 (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC) I understand you position but you are not the arbiter of what positions are mainstream enough for wikipedia, and even non mainstream positions are explained on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is not a dogma of only true things; it is an encyclopedia of knowledge, as ive explained through the NPOV links again and again. "NPOV policy means presenting all significant points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past, and not only points of view you share, but also points of view with which you disagree." Billyball998 (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Dating a book means assigning a book to a particular period of time, it doesn't refer to only the way we do it now. People did indeed date books in the middle ages. If Rashi says "This book is from xxx because I have a oral tradition that it is, or it uses a particular word" etc, that is dating a book, ie rashi is assigning a period to the creation of the book. I don't know what the sword-skeleton theory is sorry. Billyball998 (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC) I didnt, I said that rashi stated it, that is all, i will add that he is a medival jewish scholar and i appriciate the ideanote for clarification. I will also add in the reason why modern bibilical scholars don't accept earlier dating like rashis (because they dont believe daniel received divine information obviously). Billyball998 (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC) all viewpoints can be represented on Wikipedia, including religious ones, I know I already sent you those links. This also includes miracles; by explaining the claims, of the religion, we are not asserting it to be true, we are merely preserving it for study. This is an encyclopedia, not a history text book. I am a historian I apricate veracity as much as anyone, these enumerations are more for the study of the positions on Daniel, than they are for the study on Daniel. Once again, the goal of wikipedia is not to explain the truth like a history book, it is to present knowledge, including myths, legends, miracles, the reader can discern for themselves what they believe. Of course it is important not to trick the reader or present the information biasedly, and I will do my best not to. This is why the Npov is important, so the reader can recieve a flat, unbiased account, and make their own determinations. This includes religious people! Wikipedia is not anti-religion, Wikipedia is not a fourm of the commonly accepted science and history, it includes all sorts of perspectives. Billyball998 (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC) You know Dumuzid reverted it because he couldnt find the concensus citation lol doesnt make any sense cause it already says concensus but it wasn't my changes. "apologies, but I am not seeing the consensus you cite; seeing how there is pending dispute resolution, it makes sense to me to retain the ''status quo ante'' for now" Billyball998 (talk) 13:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC) oh nevermind some sort of misunderstanding Billyball998 (talk) 13:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC) I hope the form of Rashi I presented in my revised edit was more agreeable. I agree its not a DR, i made the DR really for the meta dispute we were having about how to interpret the npov. Billyball998 (talk) 14:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Bennv123 Was it necessary to bring this to WP:DRN just a few hours after this whole dispute started? Besides the OP, only one other editor even had the chance to respond to the discussion started at Talk:Book of Daniel. Why not wait for other interested editors to join the discussion at the article's talk page and see if consensus can be achieved? As the top of this page says: "Discussion normally should have taken at least two days..." before being brought here. Bennv123 (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by Dumuzid Right. As I mentioned on my talk page, I think we are using different meanings of "consensus" here; you seem to mean the scholarly version, and I am talking about Wikipedia editors. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Tricky indenting etiquette here, but I'll just chime in briefly to say that I am not sure this is really a matter for dispute resolution right now. As I see it, there's a current small but real 3-to-1 consensus against the proposed change. Billyball has provided me one source, which I am happy to consider, but this seems like more of a talk page issue. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC) Summary of dispute by tgeorgescu Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I'm not the one who has reverted your edit. Why did you not fill their username as a party to this DRN? And I guess that even if me and them take a two weeks break from the article, you will still get reverted by other experienced editors. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Your POV is dead in the mainstream academia. No amount of NPOV reinterpretation will revive it. Jedi mind tricks cannot revive the dead. WP:NOTDUMB. Modern "scholars" who defend a different dating are either severely misinformed or religious bigots. See WP:FRINGE. That the Book of Daniel is a 2nd century BCE writing in the only view from the mainstream academia in respect to its dating. Let me repeat: in the mainstream academia there are no other views. What is "dating a book"? It belongs to the historical method. The historical method is a post-Enlightenment product. So, there were no "datings of a book" before the Enlightenment. And the only people qualified to perform datings are mainstream modern historians. So, it is completely anachronistic to say that Rashi from the Middle Ages has "dated" the book to this or that century. What's next? Wantonly deleting historical information from the Peloponnesian War until the sword-skeleton theory can be incorporated into the article without passing judgment? But you do try to pass Rashi's dating for genuine, modern historiography, or at least on a par with it. WP:GEVAL. The historical method cannot attest miracles. As simply as that. See methodological naturalism. Please note that Bennv123 and Dumuzid have reverted your edits. I didn't. Not that I would shy from reverting your edits, but they were the first to respond. I am not principally opposed to citing Rashi, but there should be no implication that his dating is on a par with the modern, mainstream academic dating. WP:NPOV is not an excuse for maiming mainstream historical information from the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC) 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.

World War II reparations

– New discussion.

Filed by E-960 on 14:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• World War II reparations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• E-960 (talk · contribs)
• JeanClaudeN1 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Case of Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling and Wikipedia:I just don't like it. User JeanClaudeN1 keeps removing more detailed statements I added:

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. 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." 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.

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 - The filing editor has not yet listed or notified the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

All set, notified. --E-960 (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

• Comment

1. The wording of the RfC is not neutral.

2. E-960 forgot to mention that there is not only one source for each of the original wordings, but 6 (for the first) and 5 (for the second):

Sources for 'old statement 1':

Sources for 'old statement 2':

3. There was a RfC on the same topic just a few days ago, in which at least 3 editors rejected E-960's proposals and pointed out that they are based on original research and do not reflect the sources. Not a single editor supported his POV. Diffs: [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98] The discussion can be found here: Talk:World War II reparations § Primary Sources vs. Secondary Sources (newspaper/magazine articles make claims not found in treaty/resolution text)

References

JeanClaudeN1 (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2022 (UTC)