Revision as of 22:24, 28 October 2022

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

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 12:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

Current disputes

Pellumb Xhufi

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)
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pellumb_Xhufi

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

At a recently RSN case filled by user:Khirurg Misplaced Pages: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

• ] 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

• ], 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: (])

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 ] (translation here: ]):

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: ], translation here: ],

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

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

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

Non-neutral narrative in newspapers and tv shows

• A particularly troubling editorial by Xhufi in a Kosovo newspaper ; 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 ].

• Launched polemics against inclusion of the ethnicity question in the 2011 Albanian census claiming that it will "turn Albania into another Lebanon" , 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 .

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

• At the presentation of his book "Arbërit e Joni" (here ] (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:

] 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: ] (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: ].

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

Summary of dispute by Alltan

Summary of dispute by Ktrimi991

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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 ❖ 16:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Pellumb Xhufi discussion

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 ❖ 16:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

First Statement by Moderator

I am providing a subpage for this discussion. It is at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. Each editor may make an additional statement at Misplaced Pages: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

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 Misplaced Pages.

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. 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. That fact is verified in reliable secondary sources. Those are the basis of Misplaced Pages 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. 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

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 (summarized at Publishing#Legal_issues). Secondly Atari never controlled the right to distribute the games.(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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
• Eggsham removed a primary source, understanding Misplaced Pages policy, and my concern.
• Jorham did some legal wrangling.
• I made some copyedits for concision and to support consensus.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 since they arrived on the web. 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 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 and GOG 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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). There was a dispute over whether those rights included the right to publish the original series with the result being Stardock does have those rights. 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

• 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 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. Stardock only owns the complete rights to Star Control: Origins, and the use of the name "Star Control". This is verified in several reliable secondary sources and was later agreed to by both parties after a confusing lawsuit. 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. 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. We should also consider other sites devoted to the original series such as the reddit and twitter, 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. 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. 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)

• 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)

Slavery in Afghanistan

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

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

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

• 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: , , , , p 60, , p 102, p 90, , 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 , , p 75,, , p 90, , 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: , , p 75, , , p 60, , p 102, p 90, , 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)

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)

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)

Back-and-forth discussion on Afghan slavery

Your Lie in April

Closed as not properly discussed. The filing editor also has not notified the other editors; if that were the only problem, I would leave the case open to provide time to notify the other editors. The discussion on the article talk page has been continuing for less than 24 hours. Even more importantly, the discussion does not seem to be about article content. At least, I do not see discussion of article content as being part of what is being discussed. There are insults, which are not useful, and an argument about whether certain edits are vandalism. Discussion of whether edits are vandalism is not useful. Either report the vandalism to the vandalism noticeboard, or don't report it because it isn't vandalism. If there is an issue about article content, discuss it on the article talk page. If a discussion of article content is lengthy and inconclusive, a new request can be made here. In the meantime, remember that civility is the fourth pillar of Misplaced Pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Bailey Zappe

Closed as not discussed in the right place. There has been a lengthy discussion on the talk page of one of the editors, but no discussion on the article talk page. Discussion of disagreement about article content should be on the article talk page, because third editors might also be watching or reading the article talk page, and might be able to help resolve the conflict, or might be involved in it, establishing a rough consensus. User talk page discussion is useful, but is not sufficient before bringing a disagreement to DRN. The editors should continue their discussion on the article talk page. If the discussion there is inconclusive after at least 48 hours, a new case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

2022 Florida Gubernatorial Election

Closed as premature. There has not been any real discussion on the article talk page, although there have been some posts by the filing party. There was one reply by Curbon7, who has not been named as a party to this case and should be named. Another editor has not made any comments on the article talk page. Resume discussion on the article talk page. If it is lengthy and inconclusive, a new case can be filed here. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute

• Laurence Olivier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Craffael.09 (talk · contribs)
• EmilySarah99 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There is a conflict on the Laurence Olivier talk page about whether or not we should add an info box.

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

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I think (and hope) a mediator could help solve the conflict as it has been going on for 2 years now and we still have not come to consensus on our own.

Summary of dispute by Craffael.09

• This all started with an unsigned comment left by an IP adress the 13th of December 2020 asking why there was no infobox on the WP page Laurence Olivier. Since then, there has been 2 votes and an edit war. Looking through the RfCs, I found this article's talk page. I took a look and saw the whole debate for the infobox. I immediately thought that the infobox must be included in the article. However, having received no response regarding the DR from the opposit front(against the infobox's inclusion, I will represent a typical person that is against the infobox's inclusion.

The main argument for the infobox not to be included is that it has no real informational value is in the lead section and that it would'nt really improve the article's readability. Craffael.09 (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by EmilySarah99

• Hey EmilySarah99 ! Leave your POV here ! Craffael.09 (talk) 11:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier discussion

• This should be closed. An RfC was opened on 22 October 2022 and is still active, with people commenting. An RfC is a better way for this question to be decided. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9801:E525:AB1B:5021:6881 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

West Herzegovina Canton

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 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

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

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 Misplaced Pages.

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 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 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 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 21:51, 28 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 21:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards