→Support for "Neither": draft suggestion |
|||
Line 793: | Line 793: | ||
In the last few days, there's been a fair amount of discussion by opponents of the "Neither" option. Although the mediators share their views, we are equally intent on giving a fair hearing to the option's proponents. The poll was created with 3 options due to the reaction against the mediators' original dismissal of "Neither". Supporters of "Neither" are thus invited to identify themselves in this section, and to respond to the arguments that have been raised against it. If there is still support for "Neither", I ask that opponents not make rebuttals in this section, but either in "Miscellaneous issues", or a new section. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">[[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <font size="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(send a signal]] | [[Special:Contributions/Feezo|watch the sky]])</font></span> 01:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
In the last few days, there's been a fair amount of discussion by opponents of the "Neither" option. Although the mediators share their views, we are equally intent on giving a fair hearing to the option's proponents. The poll was created with 3 options due to the reaction against the mediators' original dismissal of "Neither". Supporters of "Neither" are thus invited to identify themselves in this section, and to respond to the arguments that have been raised against it. If there is still support for "Neither", I ask that opponents not make rebuttals in this section, but either in "Miscellaneous issues", or a new section. <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">[[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <font size="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(send a signal]] | [[Special:Contributions/Feezo|watch the sky]])</font></span> 01:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
=== Comments on Support for "Neither" === |
=== Comments on Support for "Neither" === |
||
Line 800: | Line 799: | ||
:At any rate, I'd like to suggest a further compromise -- to wit: |
:At any rate, I'd like to suggest a further compromise -- to wit: |
||
:'''Delete "neither" as a third option in the poll''', but '''add a note''' of some sort to the "Editor comments" section of the poll that would state something like: "Previous attempts to resolve this controversy have included a "gentleman's agreement" to minimize use of the band's name in mid-sentence. While this ingenious diplomatic effort might have limited the proliferation of inconsistent usages, it did not resolve the controversy and it cannot be considered as a definitive solution. Editors are always free to employ this strategy for stylistic purposes; but it is not an option in this poll because there are situations in which it is impossible to avoid the use of the band's name in running prose, and the WP community needs to arrive at a consensus on standard usage." [[User:Jburlinson|Jburlinson]] ([[User talk:Jburlinson|talk]]) 20:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
:'''Delete "neither" as a third option in the poll''', but '''add a note''' of some sort to the "Editor comments" section of the poll that would state something like: "Previous attempts to resolve this controversy have included a "gentleman's agreement" to minimize use of the band's name in mid-sentence. While this ingenious diplomatic effort might have limited the proliferation of inconsistent usages, it did not resolve the controversy and it cannot be considered as a definitive solution. Editors are always free to employ this strategy for stylistic purposes; but it is not an option in this poll because there are situations in which it is impossible to avoid the use of the band's name in running prose, and the WP community needs to arrive at a consensus on standard usage." [[User:Jburlinson|Jburlinson]] ([[User talk:Jburlinson|talk]]) 20:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC) |
||
::If there's no support for "Neither" in the next few days, I'll go ahead and implement Jburlinson's suggestion in the following way (feel free to tweak). <span style="font-family: Palatino Linotype, Book Antiqua, Palatino, serif;" color="#BBAED0">[[User:Feezo|Feezo]] <font size="-2">[[User_talk:Feezo|(send a signal]] | [[Special:Contributions/Feezo|watch the sky]])</font></span> 01:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::{{quote|Previous attempts to resolve this controversy have included a "gentleman's agreement" to minimize use of the band's name in mid-sentence. Although this agreement resulted in a "truce" for a little over a year, the resulting formal mediation case shows that it did not ultimately resolve the issue.<br />More seriously, "minimization" of mid-sentence usage is only a workable solution if it is interpreted as a mandatory ban on all mid-sentence usage of "The/the Beatles". During mediation, it was concluded that this would place an excessive restriction of language on a large, indeterminate number of articles. Such a restriction would necessitate major, far-reaching changes to Wikipedia's manual of style, and would require a sitewide RfC at minimum.<br />For these reasons, the choice of "minimizing mid-sentence usage" is not an option in this poll.}} |
Revision as of 01:33, 20 August 2012
Introduction
Hello all. Mr. Stradivarius and I will be your mediators for this case. To begin, I would like to ask all parties to submit confidential statements by email to Feezo and/or Mr. Stradivarius. As part of the formal mediation process, this is considered privileged communication: we will share the statements only with each other, and they will not be used for any purpose except this case. In your statement, please give a brief description of your position in the case, and a summary of the arguments in favor of it. You may also include your perception of the main obstacles to consensus, and any other information you believe would be helpful.
Finally, we would like everyone to be aware that we will be upholding the highest standards with regard to Wikipedia's civility policy in this mediation. While you are encouraged to be as candid as you like in your private communications with the mediators, public incivility will not be permitted. Once we receive statements from the involved parties, we will begin the public part of the mediation process. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 05:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussion Closed
|
---|
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it. |
Notice to this demandDo all parties understand this request is presented on this page? I only stumbled onto it by accident. Did I miss something? I am fairly new to WP and completely new to this process.
|
Mediation bot notices
Since the bot first went around I've added several parties that I feel should be included in this discussion. They are primarily editors who have opposed "the" in the past, so I think they should also participate. Can someone please send the bot around to notify them as well? Thanks. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Update
Mr. Stradivarius and I have decided to let the preliminary portion of the mediation run for five more days. Editors wishing to participate should submit their email statements, or indicate that they don't intend to, during this time. You don't have to be listed on the case page to participate. If there are any other editors who may have an interest in this case, feel free to notify them. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 08:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- In response to the closed discussion, I wish to emphasize that mediation is not a forum for airing grievances against editors regardless of the validity of those grievances. The mediators cannot take sides in questions of user conduct. I therefore ask all parties to place any charges against other users "on hold" during this mediation. Afterwards, you can go to AN/I, or do anything else permitted by policy, so long as the privileged nature of mediation is respected.
- Short version:
- Accusations (true or false) provoke a response;
- The response provokes a response, and so on, derailing the mediation;
- Mediation is a voluntary process: if you wish to end it, say so.
Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 06:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Checking in
The mediators are conferring, and will shortly be posting an announcement of how the case will proceed. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Statement
I have been asked to email my statement. But I don't have a statement that needs to be private. My position is that there is less conflict if articles abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If I am asked for my opinion on matters I will side with the wider Wikipedia consensus. If my position needs further clarification or if I can assist further, please get in touch. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Statement by Jusdafax
Like SilkTork, I would like to join the mediation and do not need to contribute an email. I did in fact !vote in one of the polls on this topic, and would like to see this through to a conclusion as I am looking forward to working on Beatles articles. My position, again, is that the 'small t' is normal and standard usage in most cases (for example, the authoritative works of noted Beatles author Mark Lewisohn) so why not use it in Wikipedia?
- My participation here has been called "wikihounding" by Andreasegde, however it should be noted that I play no favorites and indeed I took a very strong position against GabeMc's April 2012 Rfa [1], going so far as to urge early closure because I felt he was "unsuitable."
- I became aware of this "small t/big t" issue when I was asked by the Rfc bot to comment [2]. I commented on an unrelated matter on the Beatles talkpage [3] on July 4 and was asked by Gabe for further comment. The talk page led me to Andreasegde's ANI board discussion where I commented a month ago, and I subsequently !voted for the small 't' in another poll at the Sgt. Pepper talk page.
- Aside from an (already mentioned) unpleasant encounter a year ago, and the ANI discussion, I do not believe that I have had any other direct confrontations with Andreasegde. My understanding as of yesterday is that under the rules of mediation at Wikipedia, no sanctions can be levied against Andreasegde or anyone else here for their participation, and that civility standards will be upheld.
I strongly reject the term "wikihounding" and ask that it be struck either by Andreasegde or the mediators, as it is a serious allegation that is demonstrably untrue. Though I have expressed severe reservations regarding Andreasegde, I hope it is possible to conclude this matter of the 't' here and now. Jusdafax 22:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to mediation
Hello everyone, and welcome to the mediation! We have been a little slow in getting things started, so my apologies for that. I'm Mr. Stradivarius, one of your two mediators, and the mediation committee's newest member. If you don't like typing out "Mr. Stradivarius" every time, you are welcome to call me "Strad", or "Mr. S", or any other (printworthy!) variation you can think of. If you were wondering about the name, "Mr." is so that people will always know which pronoun to use, and "Stradivarius" is because I play the violin. Also, "Stradivarius" is the name of a camel someone once gave me. (Yes, really.) On Wikipedia you will usually find me mediating, patrolling new pages, or indulging my penchant for fiddling around with templates. Occasionally you might even find me writing an article or two, particularly on my two pet subjects, second-language acquisition and language education. I'm looking forward to working with all of you. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 18:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Case summary
So, let's get down to business. Feezo and I have decided to proceed by summarising the case and listing the issues to be mediated. Then we will leave some time for anyone who wishes to raise objections to our interpretation.
Participants
We have received statements or waivers of statements from all editors who indicated an interest in participating. Thank you all for your efforts. Here are the users who have agreed to take part:
- Editors who sent statements by email
- GabeMc (talk · contribs)
- Rothorpe (talk · contribs)
- Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs)
- Evanh2008 (talk · contribs)
- Jburlinson (talk · contribs)
Penyulap (talk · contribs)indefinitely blockedAndreasegde (talk · contribs)I was fairly confident that it would end like this. Bye-bye. :)) --andreasegde (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)- - tSR - Nth Man (talk · contribs)
- Yeepsi (talk · contribs)
- Hot Stop (talk · contribs)
- Patthedog (talk · contribs)
- Tvoz (talk · contribs)
- Editors who submitted statements on-wiki
- SilkTork (talk · contribs) [4]
- 99.251.125.65 (talk · contribs) [5]
- Binksternet (talk · contribs)
- Jusdafax (talk · contribs)
Facts of the case
This mediation case stems from disagreement over whether to use "The Beatles" or "the Beatles" in mid-sentence in Beatles-related articles. There have been multiple instances of edit-warring between "the" and "The" over the years, and there has been a great deal of discussion about it:
- Talk:The Beatles#"The/the" discussion and straw poll July 2012
- Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#The/the ... again.
- Talk:The Beatles/Archive 25#the or The?
- Talk:The Beatles/Archive 19#Protected and subsequent sections
- Talk:The Beatles/Archive 18#The vs. the
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy#"The" Beatles
- Talk:The Beatles/Archive 1#"The Beatles" or "the Beatles"?
The most recent controversy over "The" and "the" ended up at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents, where Andreasegde received a year-long topic ban from Beatles articles, and GabeMc and Andreasegde were banned from interacting with one another. These restrictions do not apply to this mediation.
Issues to be mediated
The main arguments that we will be addressing in the mediation are as follows:
- Whether it is a reasonable compromise to omit the name of the band mid-sentence
- How Wikipedia's Manual of Style affects the choice of "the" or "The"
- What external sources say about the issue
- Whether the trademark status of the band's name affects our choice of "the" or "The", and if so, how
We will leave a couple of days from now until the next step of the mediation. If anyone has any objections to any of the case summary, then you are invited to email either Feezo or myself to express your concerns. And of course, you are always welcome to ask questions about the mediation process or about anything else to do with this mediation case. For the mediators — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 18:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Issue 1: Mid-sentence compromise
Arguments for
- Support as Wikipedia works better when we follow general consensus and guidelines. It makes sense to find a compromise which keeps within guidelines and works to minimise potential offence, so I am in favour of all Beatles related articles following the consensus to keep the mid-sentence use of the band name minimal. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC) [6]
- Support. When the name of the article is titled The Beatles, it is abundantly clear what the subject is. Constantly referring to the subject reads like fancruft.--andreasegde (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Arguments against
- Oppose - While this and many other articles would benefit from a better use of pronouns, as a solution to the question of capitalization it is misguided. This method only hides the problem, and the lack of a solution, from view. It does not solve the problem. There will no doubt be instances where the use of "the Beatles" in mid-sentence will be appropriate or even unavoidable. I haven't read through the most recent version of the article but already I noticed an awkward sentence in the Song Catalogue section where it is unclear which antecedent the pronoun refers to. Piriczki (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC) [7]
- Oppose. We all do enough authorial contortions when we are summarizing a multitude of sources in the process of writing a good article for Wikipedia—we do not need one more constraint, and an unnecessary one at that. If "the Beatles" is the best possible choice for clarity in running prose then that is the choice we should use. Phrases such as "the band", "the members of the band", "the group", "the artist", etc., are all well and good in proper proportion, but when we need to bring it back home, when we need to establish absolutely who is being discussed, we should be able to do so free from constraint. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - per Binksternet and Piriczki. As I say elsewhere, common usage appears to me to be the small 't'. Arguments otherwise fail to convince. Jusdafax 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Mediators' view
At first glance, the compromise makes some sense: it settles the issue without either the capitalized or lowercase factions having to concede. There are, however, problems with this interpretation:
- First, consensus does not require unanimity: if editors factionalize, some of them are going to lose.
- The fact that this mediation was opened shows that the compromise did not settle the issue. As a practical matter, it did not work.
- A rule against avoiding mid-sentence usage constrains prose and, from a design point of view, violates the principle of least astonishment. If a new editor sees "The Beatles" or "the Beatles", he or she will immediately know which style to use. If neither usage is present, the editor may just pick one, necessitating further editing and explanations. If the compromise becomes precedent, this will potentially affect many thousands of articles.
For these reasons, the mediators see the mid-sentence compromise as an unsatisfactory solution. Unless there is a compelling reason that has not been considered, the compromise solution will be considered ruled out for the remainder of the mediation. You may add your views on this in the section below, but please do not reply to other editors who do so. If there is a disagreement, it will be approached in a structured way. And, as always, you are free to email the mediators at any time. For the mediators — Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 04:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Your view
- Agree - Per the mediators and Piriczki's fine logic. This non-solution obviously did not work, and the fact that only one editor has !voted for it in the recent polls is evidence of the lack of community support for this approach. I strongly believe this non-solution unduly constrains prose leading to poor grammatical constructions. Forcing editors to avoid the mid-sentence usage of every band name that begins with a definite article, in every single article page on wikipedia about the band or any article that mentions one of them, is simply not a workable solution, as recent events would seem to suggest. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. You missed this on the Triangular Diplomacy II section, by Prhartcom, which says something about minimising the/The: "I've changed my mind, and I've crossed out my vote above. I wrote it before reading Andreasegde's recent edits to the article. Now that I have read a fair bit of it, I must agree it seems to be working. It doesn't read awkwardly, it reads fine. And if we fix new edits as they appear it could be maintainable. Maybe this discussion is nearly resolved?"--andreasegde (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree completely with Feezo and Gabe. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
- Agree completely also. I hope we can have mid-sentence the Who, the Cure, the The, etc. Rothorpe (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: The Who's article has roughly 59 uses of "The Who" (capital 'T') in mid-sentence, The Cure has 49, and The The has 35 (all excluding quotes). How many editors (and in the future), contributing to those pages will be against any change, and if it is enforced, how many will argue, or leave Wikipedia?--andreasegde (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Piriczki, Feezo and GabeMc. Binksternet (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly Disagree. So, the consensus to minimise "the" (which has been working excellently for one whole year), has been ruled out? That throws the can of petrol right back onto the fire. As seen, this problem has been going on for years, and it will most definitely arise again at some point in the future. New younger editors will challenge it. Let's hope not many of them are "warned, and then blocked", because of it. Of course, this will spread across Wikipedia like a rash. Look at The Who or The Cure to see what kind of problems will happen there in the future.--andreasegde (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree This shouldn't be thrown out at the start. Doing so just forces a decision which will anger about half the editors involved either way. Undermines the idea of consensus too since there's been support for it. Hot Stop 16:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm with andreasegde and Hot Stop Disagree's. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 17:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree as that would throw fuel to the fire again. Remember that "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
- The trademark holds no authority over this discussion. Other trademarks such as "The New York Times" are routinely written with a lower-case "the" in running prose, or with no "the" at all. Wikipedia cannot be worried by the unlikely notion of a lawsuit from Apple Corps. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. I disagree with the word "authority". It makes this mediation sound like a legal case, which it is not.--andreasegde (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- You can't have it two ways: either the preferences of the trademark holder are a valid legal argument or there is no concern here about the legal ramifications. I think we are not concerned, therefore the status of the trademark is not something that will affect the mediation. Binksternet (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. I disagree with the word "authority". It makes this mediation sound like a legal case, which it is not.--andreasegde (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- The trademark holds no authority over this discussion. Other trademarks such as "The New York Times" are routinely written with a lower-case "the" in running prose, or with no "the" at all. Wikipedia cannot be worried by the unlikely notion of a lawsuit from Apple Corps. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree -- It seems to me that editors remain free to structure their prose in the spirit of the compromise, utilizing whatever pronouns or other anaphora they choose. It's not that you can't use an alternative construction, it's just that you don't have to.Jburlinson (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Utterly disagree - To throw out the compromise solution, which in fact did work quite well, is a rather odd position for mediators to take. It was a compromise - meaning no one got everything he or she wanted, but it was a workable solution, proposed and promoted by people who strongly preferred the capital T, but generously willing to give up what they really preferred, in the interests of harmony and moving forward. It is simply not true that it didn't work - what is true is that some people were not willing to compromise. Please put this back on the table as a workable solution. Tvoz/talk 17:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree What a pity the compromise solution has been ruled out as that now polarises the debate again. --Patthedog (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree - This has gone on long enough, as I see it. The capital T is unusual, and the arguments for it don't convince me. Trademark, bah. Common usage and common sense, please. Let's end this one way or another in any case. Jusdafax 03:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Mediators' response
Thank you all for your input. Our responses are as follows:
- [the compromise]...has been working excellently for one whole year
- The time period in question begins with the conclusion of the discussion at Talk:The Beatles/Archive 25#Triangular diplomacy II in April 2011. This argument is a valid reason to support the compromise.
- this problem has been going on for years, and it will most definitely arise again at some point in the future
- This will be true no matter what the outcome is.
- This shouldn't be thrown out at the start. Doing so just forces a decision which will anger about half the editors involved either way. Undermines the idea of consensus too since there's been support for it
- Bluntly put, mediation is not a vote. We are here to examine arguments. This doesn't mean we don't consider the opinions of the wider Wikipedia community, but it does mean that a mediation will not be "won" because one side holds a 5:4 majority in participants.
- It is simply not true that it didn't work - what is true is that some people were not willing to compromise
- These are the same thing. A compromise cannot be said to work if some people were not willing to compromise.
- generously willing to give up what they really preferred, in the interests of harmony and moving forward
- This is why the compromise must be addressed first, before considering the arguments for capitalized vs. lowercase. It will otherwise be an attractive refuge for a faction that sees itself in danger of losing.
Essentially, the mediators do not see that the arguments in favor of the compromise outweigh the arguments against it. As the participants in this case are closely split on the issue, there is no way to satisfy all parties. Although there was consensus for the compromise in early 2011, when it received 17/4 support/oppose in the triangular diplomacy poll, it has since become significantly less popular, receiving a single vote in the RfC at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#Straw Poll out of 33 for lowercase and 21 for capitalized. Although some editors have objected to how the RfC was run, a position with less than 2% support clearly does not have consensus. The problem with the compromise — that it will impose hidden language constraints on potentially many, many articles — remains unaddressed. If you still have objections, you may voice them below.
We must finally state categorically that the mediators can in no way undermine consensus — our decision applies only in the context of this mediation. You are free to try to establish support for your position elsewhere.
For the mediators — Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Postscript: In case this wasn't clear, "less than 2% support" refers to the "Maintain" option, which received one vote out of 55 cast. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Your response
- Agree with the position of the mediators. As only one editor has recently !voted to "maintain" this non-solution, I think it is safe to say that there is currently virtually zero community support for "triangular diplomacy" at this time. That, taken with a weak rationale for the "compromise", makes taking this option off the table clearly the most sensible choice moving forward. Further, I would suggest that "triangular diplomacy" is not even really a compromise at all, as in practice it actually results in articles with all upper-case definite articles and no lower-cased ones, so "triangular diplomacy" is not only a non-solution is is also a non-compromise. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand how you can say about the Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#Straw Poll, that it was "33 for lowercase and 21 for capitalized", and then say it was "less than 2% support". Could you explain? Or is this about how the poll was worded?--andreasegde (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- About the comment added above. If you are now saying it is about the word "maintain", instead of Oppose or Support, then something is amiss. Polls (and it was misleading), are normally conducted in a simple way. To quote the third option is to ignore the basics of a Poll. Editors did complain about the use of the third word.--andreasegde (talk) 20:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- You say (about future the/The arguments), "This will be true no matter what the outcome is." This is saying you fully expect there to be more arguments about the/The in the future. This is incomprehensible to me, but seems to be very destructive to the future stability of Wikipedia. Minimising the problem is the only way forward. If one side is enforced, arguments about the problem will continue forever. Would this be good for Wikipedia?--andreasegde (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree I also found that straw poll unclear; on a quick read of the comments at the time, it appeared to me to be going over the original territory once again, inexplicably asking for the umpteenth time if we preferred the upper or lower case. Yes, on looking closer now I see the obscurely worded maintain-the-compromise option, but since that was always a compromise position, if we were being asked which way we thought it should be, I had to oppose the proposition that we go with the lower case. If I had realized that, I would have clarified my comment to say I'd accept the compromise if the upper case (consensus for which was earlier reached, as I recall) was not upheld. First choice, second choice. So I think it is irrelevant what people said in that flawed straw poll, which was brought at a particularly questionable time. And it's particularly troubling to base this mediation on that poll. Tvoz/talk 06:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't understand the consternation concerning the mediators' decision. Any editor who wants to can write in accordance with the spirit of the "compromise." Nobody is saying that a person has to use "the/The Beatles" in mid-sentence. Using pronouns etc. is just fine; it might very well result in more graceful prose, much of the time. But, as a big fan of the compound sentence, having to operate under the restriction of always avoiding the band's name in an independent clause is too confining. So we need a definite decision on "the/The" -- one or the other.Jburlinson (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree Concur with Tvoz regarding the confusion over the various polls, more flaws than the Empire State in the end. The only workable viable solution proved to be the compromise where at least editors of both persuasions could work together; that was progress, this isn’t. Remember: not even published authors can agree on this. --Patthedog (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment. As Jburlinson says, we need a decision. Once there is one, no point in giving unnecessary offence. It's just a recommendation: it needs to be treated in that spirit, not as inspiration for further argument. Rothorpe (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- disagree the latest straw poll/RFC was written in such a biased manner that the results should be considered invalid. Also, the compromise was working until one editor got his panties in a bunch about the issue. Hot Stop 23:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment The consensus for the past several months has been to minimize the band's name as I just did. I have always stated the The Beatles should be called "The Beatles" with 'the' capitalized for legal reasons because "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd. The Beatles' official web site capitalises the T as well as you can see on the current home page at [8]. The T/t war had gone on for several years and the war had been reviving itself again and again and again. According to Wikipedia, trade marks must be capitalised as shown at [9]Steelbeard1(talk) 04:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, no replying to each other's posts for the moment, please. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Statement from Binksternet
Rather than email a statement, I choose to post one.
In light of the dissension about what should be in Wikipedia's manual of style, I think we should look outside of Wikipedia. I will quote the Chicago Manual of Style (CMoS) of 2003 because I have a copy. In section 8.73 on page 338 it discusses institutions and companies, addressing the question of "what to capitalize". It says:
"A the preceding a name, even when part of the official title, is lowercased in running text.
Fortunately for our dispute, it gives as examples the Beatles, the Beach Boys and the Grateful Dead, but it says to capitalize the stylized the of Tha Eastsidaz. The CMoS guideline for trademarks and brand names in sections 8.162 and 8.163 does not mention the Beatles or any other band, nor does it address an initial the in a trademark. Other parts of the CMoS hold the same position about the in running text; for instance, the section 8.160 says to lowercase the initial the in running text when writing about periodicals such as the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune. (The guideline further states that a lowercase the at the beginning of a periodical name does not get italicized.) This sort of the can be dropped for reading flow. One exception is the title of an article, book, poem, film, opera, play or other work, which always uses a capital "T" in the initial the in running text, such as "The Foo" (unless "Foo" works better with surrounding syntax and the formal "The Foo" can be found in footnotes or the bibliography.) Another exception is the city called The Hague in the Netherlands.
The CMoS is not the final word, of course. Wikipedia has often drawn from CMoS and has just as often drawn from other guides. The Oxford style guide likely addresses the issue, but I do not own a copy. I can infer the Oxford position by this usage in The Oxford History of English: "the golden age of the Beatles". Other style guides agree, including Fowler's Modern English Usage in which the Beatles are given as an example as lowercase the in running text. There is not one external style guide which recommends a capital The Beatles in running text. We should change Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music#Names (definite article) to fit with the normal standard of the English-speaking world. Binksternet (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
New proposed solution
Hello all — first, we wish to thank you all for your continued input. We sincerely appreciate your efforts to resolve this.
That said, the disagreements in this case are not trivial. When we, the mediators, proposed abandoning the compromise, we did not anticipate the level of controversy this would arouse. We have paid close attention to the objections to our decision. Although our personal views have not changed, it is clear that abandoning the compromise option at this stage would be tantamount to abandoning the mediation.
As the participants are aware, leaving this unresolved runs the risk that this will end up at Arbcom. This is in nobody's interest, even if the arbitrators rule in favor of your preferred style: the necessity of the case would represent a failure of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, and the case could result in sanctions on the editors or articles involved. There is no reason this should happen. We, Mr. Stradivarius and Feezo, sincerely believe that you are all here in good faith, and after hearing your concerns, propose a new solution as follows:
Episode IV: A New Poll
In order to accurately gauge broader community opinion, it has been suggested that we run a new RfC/poll. The wording, placement, and structure would be carefully worked out in advance, and agreed to by all parties. A definitive result could settle the issue just as effectively as arbitration, but would be a victory for the process of consensus-based dispute resolution, and would ultimately strengthen Wikipedia in the long term.
Some suggestions for structuring the poll, which can later be refined:
- We will agree in advance on the placement of the poll, its exact wording, the time it will run, and how to publicize it.
- Three options: "The", "the", and "neither", clearly labeled, with no "support/oppose" dualism.
- We'll work out the exact wording in the discussion of the poll options. ("We" includes everyone here — that is, the poll options will be something all parties to the mediation agree on.)
- Make it clear that a vote for one option
rejects the other twois exclusively for that option. While there is merit for a poll where participants can vote for multiple options in order of preference, this adds a layer of complexity that could be confusing. - The "neither" option would mean mandatory avoidance of "The/the Beatles" in running text.
- The results would be determined by a trusted third party agreed to by the parties to the mediation. The mediators will not make the decision, as they have already given their opinion on one of the poll options.
- A fourth party could optionally be appointed to independently evaluate the third party's decision, if any of the participants wish to appeal it. He or she would have the final say on the issue.
- We may also, with your agreement, decide that after creating the poll, the parties will not participate in it beyond voting and making their statements. This is to ward off the potential for claims that a party attempted to influence the results by "badgering" their opposition.
- "Badgering" is a contentious label for editors who are perceived as excessively arguing with their opponents in a "!vote" such as AfD or RfA. The mediators will never use the term themselves. However, by abstaining from participation in the poll, the parties will be protected from any possible claim, from any editor, that they engaged in "badgering". Basically, this means that once the arguments have been presented, it will be up to the community at large to decide.
- Another option is to agree that the parties will abstain from statements entirely, participating only with their vote. The idea is that the different viewpoints would be represented entirely in the poll options.
- "Badgering" is a contentious label for editors who are perceived as excessively arguing with their opponents in a "!vote" such as AfD or RfA. The mediators will never use the term themselves. However, by abstaining from participation in the poll, the parties will be protected from any possible claim, from any editor, that they engaged in "badgering". Basically, this means that once the arguments have been presented, it will be up to the community at large to decide.
As far as giving this teeth, this is up to yourselves and the community at large. If the poll is decisive, then persistent arguing will likely be seen as a user conduct issue rather than a content dispute. A close vote would be more problematic. We could decide that the result would be binding on the parties here, but this would have to be a unanimous decision by the parties, and would not include other editors. However, a close vote and high participation would mean that the case is probably ripe for arbitration. (See previously rejected case [10])
It is hoped that these suggestions will allow us to create a neutral, unbiased poll that will give a true picture of Wikipedia's position on the issue. We invite you to add your thoughts below.
Again, thank you all for your patience in this matter. For the mediators, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Update
Wonderful! Thank you all for your prompt responses. I've amended the above list to address the comments below. If you want to update your comments, probably the most logical format is to just reply to your own post, indicating whether the revised list addresses your concerns. Meanwhile, we should begin writing out the poll options. Anyone is free to start — just create a section below with the name of the option and the arguments/evidence for it. Remember, your audience is the wider Wikipedia, so be polite, persuasive, and sincere.
Also, since the idea is to come up with poll options we can all agree on, I think we can relax the current restrictions on replying to other people's comments — as long as the discussion is focused on how to present the arguments in the poll options, rather than on the arguments themselves. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 09:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Your thoughts
- Can you please number the points above, so as to make it easier to agree/disagree with them? For example: I agree with the first [1] point, but the second [2] is problematic. BTW, I thank you both for proposing this.--andreasegde (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with [1] completely. If [2] said something like, "a: The Beatles, b: the Beatles, or c: Minimising mid-sentence: the band/group/they/all four Beatles, etc.". Not sure about the word "reject" in [3]: Maybe, "Choosing the option that would be acceptable to both sides"? Totally agree with [5] and [6], but [7] could say make a "short statement". Can it be agreed by all parties that WP:Canvassing should definitely NOT be allowed in the poll (apart from the people listed here?) I realise that using Wiki-mail can circumvent that (sad, but true), but it would make this whole thing more neutral.
- IMO, no arguments should be presented for/against.--andreasegde (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have any issues with this proposal in principle, but why should we assume that it would bring about any more permanent a solution than any of the various polls and RfCs to date? What kind of proverbial teeth does such a solution have when it represents nothing more than a consensus and everyone knows that consensus can change? This is why I have consistently advocated for a solution being imposed from outside the standard venues for discussion and consensus building. As long as someone disagrees with the way things are being done, sometime or somewhere, this nonsense is going to flare up again and again, unless the decision is definitive and binding (preferably indefinitely so). Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support All the points seem pretty good to me. yeepsi (Time for a chat?) 10:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support this entirely. Hot Stop 15:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support -- let's do this thing.Jburlinson (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support - Sounds like a fine solution, I especially like the last point about !voting (with a statement) but not commenting further. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support, though I do share Evanh's concerns. (I'll be offline for 10 days.) Rothorpe (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support; too bad the process is drawn out longer. Binksternet (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment It mostly looks fine to me, but I could use some clarifcation on point 7 regarding the term "badgering the opposition." Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support --Patthedog (talk) 06:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support as amended Sorry for delay in response. Looks good with the changes. Tvoz/talk 15:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Support the amended version, with cautious optimism. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: everyone who participated in the recent Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#Straw Poll and Talk:The Beatles#.22The.2Fthe.22 discussion and straw poll July 2012 discussions needs to be contacted about whatever action arises from this. GFHandel ♬ 22:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I agree with GFHandel's comment above, and I would also suggest, if protocol allows, that everyone who participated in the most recent polls be notified of the new poll by the mediators. It is my understanding that this would not constitute canvassing since all the recent !voters are now involved parties, perhaps I am mistaken about this. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -- If this vote is going to have long-lasting and far-reaching consequences (as it well should), it needs to be heavily publicised. Not just by contacting users who engaged in similar discussions in the past, but on a community-wide level. Via noticeboards, watchlist notices, and by any other practical means. The decision needs to be definitive, and if only a small cross-section of the community is taking part, the chances are far greater that someone else is going to come along at a later date and complain that they weren't consulted or didn't know it was taking place. Get that out of the way early. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Evan, this new poll will need as much exposure as possible and I think he is correct to suggest the mediators post notices in as many places as would increase it's profile. We need as many !votes as possible to judge as broad a consensus as possible. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: 1: The whole section below should be deleted and left to the mediators; it is far too complicated. The mediators stressed earlier that this should not happen. I personally do not like steam-roller tactics. 2: People who are in this mediation are encouraged to make comments, but other comments should be stricken. Otherwise, everybody and his grandmother will be in here pushing it one way or the other. Not nice.--andreasegde (talk) 10:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment "Meanwhile, we should begin writing out the poll options. Anyone is free to start — just create a section below with the name of the option and the arguments/evidence for it." I assumed that was what was meant. I could be wrong. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- True, but making it as simple as possible to avoid confusion is not what is going on below. We are discussing a poll with three options, not the Bill of Rights. It was suggested above that a "statement" should be made, and not a speech to parliament.--andreasegde (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Andreasegde, you have still not provided even one specific example or suggestion of where the poll's clarity could be increased and/or the potential for confusion caused by it decreased. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Making a poll that is simple, brief, easy to understand and clear. Stop the steamroller.--andreasegde (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop with the personal attacks, there is no need to call anyone names here. I'll ask you nicely, please reconsider your delivery and start collaborating on the poll, there is work to be done. For example, shouldn't you be drafting an arguments for "The" rationale? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop complaining about personal attacks and converse. We are not here to draft "arguments", but to find a simple solution for a poll that everybody agrees with. I agree with Jburlinson's method, which is to propose ideas within a conversation.--andreasegde (talk) 05:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please stop with the personal attacks, there is no need to call anyone names here. I'll ask you nicely, please reconsider your delivery and start collaborating on the poll, there is work to be done. For example, shouldn't you be drafting an arguments for "The" rationale? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Making a poll that is simple, brief, easy to understand and clear. Stop the steamroller.--andreasegde (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Andreasegde, you have still not provided even one specific example or suggestion of where the poll's clarity could be increased and/or the potential for confusion caused by it decreased. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- True, but making it as simple as possible to avoid confusion is not what is going on below. We are discussing a poll with three options, not the Bill of Rights. It was suggested above that a "statement" should be made, and not a speech to parliament.--andreasegde (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Poll (draft) and discussion
The following poll text is a draft that is under construction. Please alter the text as you see fit, and note that there is a section after the poll text for discussing issues related to the poll text.
Poll (draft)
Background
This poll was created as the result of a mediation case. The purpose is to gauge current community consensus in regard to the issue of capitalising the definite article ("the") mid-sentence when referring to the band also known as the "Fab Four". The poll will run for X weeks, after which the results will be evaluated by an impartial editor agreed to by the parties to the mediation. A second impartial editor will also be retained to evaluate that decision. In the event of a decisive outcome (> Y% majority), the parties to the mediation agree to abide by the result – that is, they will not initiate another discussion of the issue, although they may of course participate if another editor does so.
Options
When the band's name is used as a noun:
- Upper-case – Use an upper-case definite article in the band's name when it appears mid-sentence ("... The Beatles ...").
- Lower-case – Use a lower-case definite article in the band's name when it appears mid-sentence ("... the Beatles ...").
- Neither – Only permit the band's name to be used at the start of a sentence ("The Beatles ...").
Evidence for Upper-case
- Universally applicable in running-prose.
- The name "Beatles" is still permissible usage in mid-sentence as an adjective (e.g. "Beatles paraphernalia", "Beatles lore").
- Although the Wikipedia Manual of Style recommends lower-case, the duration of this controversy shows that this is not a satisfactory solution.
- "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd.[1] and the MoS says to capitalize trademarks in general.
High-quality secondary sources that support an upper-case definite article mid-sentence include:
- Omnibus Press publications (UK publisher).
- The Beatles: Music Revolutionaries, by Jeremy Roberts (USA Today).
- The Rough Guide to The Beatles, by Chris Ingham.
- Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties, by Ian MacDonald (Chicago Review Press).
- The Beatles Complete Chord Songbook (Hal Leonard Corporation)
High-quality primary sources that support an upper-case definite article mid-sentence include:
- Official Beatles web site
- The Beatles Anthology (Omnibus Press), "editorial note" at beginning of volume.
- EMI Group Limited, example: Timeline
Use with other bands
- There are many groups named "The _________". The resolution of this mediation could potentially affect usage in articles for all such bands. A rough sampling of WP articles on British Invasion bands contemporaneous with "the/The Beatles" reveals considerable inconsistency. Many articles have mixed usages, with both "the" and "The" used mid sentence, in an apparently indiscriminate way: e.g. The Troggs, The Dave Clark Five, The Moody Blues, The Searchers, The Animals. A number of articles have some mixture, but tend predominantly towards lower-case "t" in mid-sentence: e.g. The Yardbirds. One article is pretty consistent with lower case "t": The Rolling Stones.
- Where there is consistency throughout a given article, however, the tendency is to use upper-case "T": The Kinks, The Hollies, The Zombies, The Who (although this might be a special case, sui generis), The Fortunes. The same is true for American groups of the period: The Doors, The Buckinghams, etc. -- although, once again, most articles have a mixture of usages, more or less willy-nilly. The upshot is that there appears to be an existing unacknowledged, and perhaps unconscious, practical consensus slightly favoring capital "T". Depending on the outcome of the mediation, if an effort is made to standardize across WP through explicit guidance in the MoS, there will probably be more cleanup work in shifting capital "T" to lower-case "t". That said, there will be a lot of effort in either direction.
Evidence for Lower-case
- Universally applicable in running-prose.
- "Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd, thus using "Beatles" mid-sentence as a noun requires adding a definite article but does not infringe on the trade marked name "Beatles".
- The name "Beatles" is still permissible usage in mid-sentence as an adjective (e.g. "Beatles paraphernalia", "Beatles lore").
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music) states that a lower-case definite article should be used in band names:
- Mid-sentence, per the MoS, the word "the" should in general not be capitalized in continuous prose, e.g. "Wings featured Paul McCartney from the Beatles and Denny Laine from the Moody Blues."
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks states that "standard English text formatting and capitalization rules" apply to trade marks:
- Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official".
The Wikipedia Manual of Style says "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." That was this version, which uses "the".
External style guides that recommend using a lower-case definite article mid-sentence include:
- The Times style and usage guide says: "Beatles, the, no need to cap the unless at the start of a sentence".(2003, p.24)
- The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition) specifically uses the Beatles as an example and states: "A the preceding a name, even when part of the official title, is lowercased in running text."(2010, p.416)
- Butcher's Copy-editing says "in a sentence the definite article should be lower-cased".(2006, p.241) Also in Butcher's: "too many capitals can be obtrusive and distracting for the reader."(2010 p.126)
- Fowler's Modern English Usage (Oxford), "a festival celebrating the music of the Beatles".(2004, p.293)
- New Hart's Rules (Oxford) says: "Historians commonly impose minimal capitalisation on institutional references" and "minimise the use of capital initials where there is no detectable difference between the capitaized and the lower-case forms" and "overuse of capital initials is obtrusive, and can even confuse by suggesting false distinctions"(2005, p.90). On page 92 of New Hart's Rules there is a list of examples for the capitalization of names, one is "the Beatles", with a lower-cased definite article.
The highest-quality printed secondary sources (authors) who use a lower-case definite article mid-sentence include:
- Mark Lewisohn (considered the world's leading expert on the Beatles), Harry (founder of MerseyBeat), Spitz, Gould, Norman, Davies, Everett and Miles.
High-quality secondary sources printed in the UK by UK publishers using a lower-case definite article mid-sentence include:
- Cambridge University Press (Moore, 1997), Oxford University Press (Everett, 1999), Ashgate (Julien ed., 2008), Macmillan (Martin, 1997), Continuum (Womack, 2007) and Virgin Publishing Ltd. (Harry, 2000).
On-line secondary sources to use a lower-case definite article throughout include:
- The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Independant, The Liverpool Daily Post, Rolling Stone, Pitchfork, Billboard, Allmusic, The Rock & Roll Hall of Fame and the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Primary sources to support a lower-case "the" include:
- The Beatles' official website.
- A hand-written letter, dated 1960, in which Paul McCartney wrote " a member of the 'BEATLES' ".
- A letter dated 1969, signed by Lennon, Harrison and Starr which uses a lower-case definite article.
- A hand-written letter by Lennon, dated March 1970, from page 351 of the Beatles Anthology (2000), which uses a lower-case definite article both times the band is mentioned in running-prose.
- A hand-written letter by McCartney, dated April 1970, from page 352 of the Beatles Anthology (2000), which uses a lower-case definite article when using the band's name in running-prose.
- Epstein's book, both of George Martin's books, Geoff Emerick's book, Derek Taylor's book, Peter Brown's book, Harrison's book, McCartney's book and Coleman's bios on Lennon all use a lower-case definite article mid-sentence throughout.
The vast majority of high-quality, printed sources used to source Wikipedia articles related to the Beatles use a lower-case definite article throughout. Wikipedia should be consistent with the overwhelming consensus in published books dealing with the Beatles, including:
- Austerlitz, Saul (2007). Money for Nothing: A History of the Music Video, from The Beatles to The White Stripes. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-7119-7520-5.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Bacon, Tony; Morgan, Gareth (2006). Paul McCartney – Bass Master – Playing the Great Beatles Basslines (1st ed.). Backbeat Books. ISBN 978-0-87930-884-1.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Benitez, Vincent Perez (2010). The Words and Music of Paul McCartney: The Solo Years. Praeger. ISBN 978-0-313-34969-0.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Boyd, Pattie (2007). Wonderful Tonight. ISBN 978-0-307-40783-2.
- Bronson, Fred (1992). The Billboard Book of Number One Hits (3rd revised ed.). Billboard Books. ISBN 978-0-8230-8298-8.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Brown, Peter; Gaines, Steven (2002). The Love You Make: An Insider's Story of The Beatles. New American Library. ISBN 978-0-451-20735-7.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Buk, Askold (1996). "Strum Together". Guitar World: Acoustic (17).
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Campbell, Michael (2008). Popular Music in America: The Beat Goes On. East Windsor, CT: Wadsworth. ISBN 978-0-495-50530-3.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Carlin, Peter Ames (2009). Paul McCartney: A Life. Touchstone. ISBN 978-1-4165-6209-2.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Coleman, Ray. John Winston Lennon. Sidjwick & Jackson; 1984. ISBN 978-0-283-98942-1.
- Coleman, Ray. John Ono Lennon: Volume 2 1967–1980. Sidgwick & Jackson; 1984. ISBN 978-0-283-99082-3.
- Coleman, Ray. Lennon: The Definitive Biography. Harper; 1992. ISBN 0-06-098608-5.
- Cook, Nicholas (2009). The Cambridge Companion to Recorded Music. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521684613.
- Davies, Hunter (1968). The Beatles (Revised 2009 ed.). New York & London: W.W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-33874-4.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Doggett, Peter (2009). You Never Give Me Your Money: The Beatles After the Breakup (1st US hardcover ed.). Harper. ISBN 978-0-06-177446-1.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Emerick, Geoff; Massey, Howard (2006). Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of The Beatles. Gotham. ISBN 978-1-59240-269-4.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Epstein, Brian (1998) [1965]. A Cellarful of Noise. ISBN 978-0671011963.
- Everett, Walter (1999). The Beatles as Musicians: Revolver through the Anthology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-512941-0.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Everett, Walter (2001). The Beatles As Musicians: The Quarry Men through Rubber Soul. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-514105-4.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Frontani, Michael R (2007). The Beatles: Image and the Media. University Press of Mississippi. ISBN 1-57806-965-3.
- George-Warren, Holly (editor) (2001). The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll (2005 revised and updated ed.). Fireside. ISBN 978-0-7432-9201-6.
{{cite book}}
:|first=
has generic name (help); Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Giuliano, Geoffrey (1997). Dark Horse: The Life and Art of George Harrison (Revised ed.). New York: Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-80747-5.
- Goldman, Albert Harry (2001). The Lives of John Lennon. Chicago Review Press. ISBN 978-1-55652-399-1.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Gould, Jonathan (2007). Can't Buy Me Love: The Beatles, Britain and America (First Paperback ed.). Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-0-307-35338-2.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Graff, Gary (January 2000). "Yesterday & Today". Guitar World. 20 (1).
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - Huntley, Elliot J (2004). Mystical One: George Harrison: After the Break-up of the Beatles. Guernica Editions. ISBN 1-55071-197-0.
- Harrison, George (1980). I, Me, Mine. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-42787-3.
- Harry, Bill (2000a). The Beatles Encyclopedia: Revised and Updated. Virgin. ISBN 978-0-7535-0481-9.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Harry, Bill (2003). The George Harrison Encyclopedia. Virgin. ISBN 978-0-7535-0822-0.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Harry, Bill (2000b). The John Lennon Encyclopedia. Virgin. ISBN 978-0-7535-0404-8.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Harry, Bill (2002). The Paul McCartney Encyclopedia. Virgin. ISBN 978-0-7535-0716-2.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Harry, Bill (1985). The Book Of Beatle Lists. Poole, Dorset: Javelin. ISBN 0-7137-1521-9.
- Hertsgaard, Mark (1995). A Day in the Life:The Music and Artistry of the Beatles. ISBN 0-385-31517-1.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Jisi, Chris (October 2005). "He Can Work It Out". Bass Player. 16 (10).
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Julien, Olivier (ed.). Sgt. Pepper and the Beatles: It Was Forty Years Ago Today. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-754-66708-7.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Kirchherr, Astrid (1999). Hamburg Days. Guildford, Surrey: Genesis Publications. ISBN 978-0-904351-73-6.
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - Lavezzoli, Peter (2006). The Dawn of Indian Music in the West: Bhairavi. New York and London: Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-1815-9.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Leng, Simon (2006). While My Guitar Gently Weeps: The Music of George Harrison (Revised ed.). Hal Leonard. ISBN 1-4234-0609-5.
- Lennon, Cynthia (2005). John. New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 978-0-307-33855-6.
- Lennon, Cynthia (1978). A Twist of Lennon. Avon. ISBN 978-0-380-45450-1.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Levy, Joe (editor) (2005). Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time (First Paperback ed.). Wenner Books. ISBN 978-1-932958-61-4.
{{cite book}}
:|first=
has generic name (help); Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Lewisohn, Mark (1992). The Complete Beatles Chronicle:The Definitive Day-By-Day Guide To The Beatles' Entire Career (2010 ed.). Chicago Review Press. ISBN 978-1-56976-534-0.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Lewisohn, Mark (1988). The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions. New York: Harmony. ISBN 978-0-517-57066-1.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Lewisohn, Mark (editor) (2002). Wingspan: Paul McCartney's Band on the Run. Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0-316-86032-1.
{{cite book}}
:|first=
has generic name (help); Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Mackenzie, Maxwell (1998). The Beatles: Every Little Thing. It Books. ISBN 978-0380796984.
- Martin, George; Hornsby, Jeremy (1994). All You Need Is Ears. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-11482-4.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Martin, George (1994). Summer of love: The making of Sgt. Pepper. ISBN 978-0-333-60398-7.
- McCartney, Paul; Mitchell, Adrian (editor) (2001). Blackbird singing: Poems and Lyrics 1965–1999. W.W. Norton and Company Inc. ISBN 978-0-393-02049-6.
{{cite book}}
:|first2=
has generic name (help); Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - McGee, Garry (2003). Band on the Run: A History of Paul McCartney and Wings. Taylor Trade. ISBN 978-0-87833-304-2.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Miles, Barry (1997). Paul McCartney: Many Years From Now (1st Hardcover ed.). Henry Holt & Company. ISBN 978-0-8050-5248-0.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Molenda, Michael (November 2005). "Here, There, and Everywhere". Guitar Player. 39 (11).
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - Moore, Allan F. (1997). The Beatles: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-57484-6.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Mulhern, Tom (July 1990). "Paul McCartney". Guitar Player. 24, No.7 (246).
{{cite journal}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) - Norman, Philip (1996). Shout!: The Beatles in Their Generation. New York: Fireside. ISBN 978-0-684-43254-0.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Norman, Philip (2008). John Lennon: The Life. New York: Ecco/HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-075401-3.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Roberts, David (editor) (2005). British Hit Singles & Albums (18 ed.). Guinness World Records Limited. ISBN 978-1-904994-00-8.
{{cite book}}
:|first=
has generic name (help); Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Rodriguez, Robert (2010). Fab Four FAQ 2.0: The Beatles' Solo Years, 1970–1980. New York: Backbeat. ISBN 978-0-87930-968-8.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Rosen, Craig (1996). The Billboard Book of Number One Albums. Billboard. ISBN 978-0-823-07586-7.
{{cite book}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - Riley, Tim (2011). Lennon: The Man, the Myth, the Music—The Definitive Life. New York: Hyperion/HarperCollins. ISBN 978-1-4013-2452-0.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Riley, Tim (2001). Tell Me Why: A Beatles Commentary. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81120-3.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Sandford, Christopher (2006). McCartney. Carroll & Graf. ISBN 978-0-7867-1614-2.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Sawyers, June Skinner (editor) (2006). Read the Beatles: Classic and New Writings on the Beatles, Their Legacy, and Why They Still Matter. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-303732-3.
{{cite book}}
:|first=
has generic name (help); Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Schaffner, Nicholas (1977). The Beatles Forever. Harrisburg: Cameron House. ISBN 0-8117-0225-1.
- Schaffner, Nicholas (1980). The Boys from Liverpool: John, Paul, George, and Ringo. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0-416-30661-6.
- Seaman, Frederic (1991). The Last Days of John Lennon. Birch Lane Press. ISBN 1-55972-084-0.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Shapiro, Marc (2002). Behind Sad Eyes: The Life of George Harrison. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-30993-7.
- Sheff, David; Golson, G. Barry (editor) (1981). The Playboy Interviews with John Lennon & Yoko Ono. Playboy Press. ISBN 0-87223-705-2.
{{cite book}}
:|first2=
has generic name (help); Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Sounes, Howard (2010). Fab: An Intimate Life of Paul McCartney. Da Capo Press. ISBN 978-0-306-81783-0.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Spitz, Bob (2005). The Beatles: The Biography. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 978-0-316-80352-6.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Stark, Steven D. (2006). Meet the Beatles: A Cultural History of the Band That Shook Youth, Gender, and the World. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-000893-2.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Taylor, Derek (1987). It Was Twenty Years Ago Today. Fireside. ISBN 978-0671642013.
- Unterberger, Richie (2002). Turn! Turn! Turn!: The '60s Folk-rock Revolution. Backbeat Books. ISBN 0-87930-703-X.
- Unterberger, Richie (2006). The Unreleased Beatles: Music & Film. Backbeat Books. ISBN 0-87930-892-3.
- Wenner, Jann; George-Warren, Holly (editor) (2000). Lennon Remembers. Verso. ISBN 1-85984-600-9.
{{cite book}}
:|first2=
has generic name (help); Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Winn, John C. (2008). Way Beyond Compare: The Beatles' Recorded Legacy, Volume One, 1957–1965. New York: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-0-307-45157-6.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Winn, John C. (2009). That Magic Feeling: The Beatles' Recorded Legacy, Volume Two, 1966–1970. New York: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 978-0-307-45239-9.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help) - Womack, Kenneth (2009). The Cambridge Companion to the Beatles. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521689762.
- Womack, Kenneth (2007). Long and Winding Roads: The Evolving Artistry of the Beatles. London & New York: Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-1746-6.
{{cite book}}
: Invalid|ref=harv
(help)
Usage data: The following is from a corpus test using one representative corpus of written British English (the BNC) and one of American English (COCA). The data shows that 89.5% of American sources use a lower-case definite article, and 54.1% of British sources use a lower-case definite article.
context | British BNC |
American COCA | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
use in nominal compounds1 | 63 | 10.3% | 171 | 17.2% |
other generic use without articles2 | 10 | 2.8% | 17 | 1.7% |
referring to individual band members3 | 3 | 0.9% | 22 | 2.2% |
orthographically neutralized4 | 32 | 9.2% | 107 | 10.8% |
other neutral contexts | 4 | 1.1% | 14 | 1.4% |
Total neutral contexts| | 112 | 32.1% | 331 | 33.4% |
Use without adjacent article5 | 8 | 2.3% | 29 | 2.9% |
Lowercase article | 126 | 36.1% | 564 | 57.0% |
Uppercase article | 103 | 29.5% | 66 | 6.7% |
Percentage lower-case vs. upper-case | 54.1% | 89.5% | ||
Total | 349 | 990 | ||
|
Evidence for Neither
- While this option removes freedom in sentence construction, use of a pronoun (e.g. "they", "them") or anaphora ("the group", "the band") is a way to avoid mid-sentence usage of the band name.
- The name "Beatles" is still permissible usage in mid-sentence as an adjective (e.g. "Beatles paraphernalia", "Beatles lore").
Evidence against Neither
- Universally unapplicable in running-prose. This option would effectively mean that a list of bands could not be constructed in an English sentence, for example, the sentence: "Bands of the 1960s include: The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, The Doors, the Yardbirds and The Moody Blues" would be prohibited under this option.
- This option violates the Principle of least astonishment, and editors unfamiliar with the rule are likely to accidently break it.
- This option introduces constraints in English sentence construction that are too great to be practical, e.g. this option prohibits use of the band's name in a compound sentence after the first clause.
- There are numerous band names that begin with a definite article, and the resolution of this mediation could potentially affect usage in thousands of articles related to those bands. For example: the Band, The Dave Clark Five, the Guess Who, The Who, the Moody Blues, The Searchers, the Animals, The Rolling Stones, the Eagles and The Doors.
- This option had previously been implemented and it did not resolve the controversy long-term.
References
Editor comments (when poll starts)
Notes
- Please refrain from commenting on other people's !votes in the poll sub-section below. There is a sub-section for general discussion, and comments should be made there and not in the poll sections below.
- A !vote for one option is exclusively for that option and should not be considered as partial endorsement of one of the other two options.
- This poll is relevant only to running-prose/mid-sentence band name usage as a noun. It will not affect capitalisation when beginning a sentence with the band name.
Upper-case
- John Nelson
Lower-case
- John Smith
Neither
- Jane Smith
Discussion
- Comment - I have intentionally not numbered the options to avoid the appearance that they are ranked in any way. If you disagree please let me know. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- It might make sense to refer to the options as uppercase/lowercase instead of The/the. Also, I don't think it's necessary to include the 'reasons against' section for the upper/lower parts since the reasons against would (presumably) be the reason for the other choice. Hot Stop 05:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, and I've made the suggested changes, thanks for the input. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- It might make sense to refer to the options as uppercase/lowercase instead of The/the. Also, I don't think it's necessary to include the 'reasons against' section for the upper/lower parts since the reasons against would (presumably) be the reason for the other choice. Hot Stop 05:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment -- I'm OK with a simplified version of this poll. My suggestions are to: (1) Eliminate the "arguments for & against" sections. It seems to me that all points of view have already been expressed. Perhaps a link to one or more of the discussions concerning "the/The" could be provided for the benefit of editors who might not have been aware of this controversy until now. (2) Change the "neither" option to read: "Neither - Mandatory avoidance of all uses of the band name as a noun in mid-sentence." That way, Beatles as an adjective (e.g. "Beatles paraphernalia") would be OK. So the resulting poll would be very simple -- just a statement of the issue and a vote: one person, one vote, three options, no discussion.Jburlinson (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for making comments Jbulinson. I agree with comment (2), and will make the appropriate change. On comment (1) I tend to disagree a bit. As not everyone is equally familiar with this issue I think rationales are needed. Lets wait and see what others think on this particular issue. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- One must realise that this is a mediation, and not an article to be improved. This is not a GAR, nor an FAC. Before any changes are made, they should be proposed, and then agreed upon by all parties involved. No single person is at the helm here.--andreasegde (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- I propose that the above "Discussion and straw poll (draft)" should be closed, as it goes against the wishes of the mediators, which is to make this poll as simple as possible, to avoid any confusion.--andreasegde (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Andreasegde, are you willing to make some specific comments that could be addressed? This is only a first draft, I am sure the final poll will address everyone's issues. You seem to think that every edit or revision to the draft requires unanimous support from all parties to the mediation, but I do not see that in any of the mediators comments. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the statement above: "'We' includes everyone here — that is, the poll options will be something all parties to the mediation agree on". Your comment that I "seem to think that every edit or revision to the draft requires unanimous support" is obviously wrong. Let's work together to make it as simple as possible, and something that we all agree about.--andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I want to collaborate with you and everyone else, that's why I asked you for specific suggestions versus blanket statements that cannot be addressed. Also, I think the mediators meant that before the poll goes live we will have reached full agreement, not that every tweak during the drafting phase requires prior consensus. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- My statement was very clear, as was the mediator's advice, which was/is to make it as simple as possible, so as to avoid confusion. Three simple, direct questions that have one answer to the person that replies. Anything more is clouding the issue.--andreasegde (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Right, so what specifically are you suggesting we change so as to avoid potential confusion? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please read my previous comments.--andreasegde (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Right, so what specifically are you suggesting we change so as to avoid potential confusion? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- My statement was very clear, as was the mediator's advice, which was/is to make it as simple as possible, so as to avoid confusion. Three simple, direct questions that have one answer to the person that replies. Anything more is clouding the issue.--andreasegde (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes I want to collaborate with you and everyone else, that's why I asked you for specific suggestions versus blanket statements that cannot be addressed. Also, I think the mediators meant that before the poll goes live we will have reached full agreement, not that every tweak during the drafting phase requires prior consensus. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the statement above: "'We' includes everyone here — that is, the poll options will be something all parties to the mediation agree on". Your comment that I "seem to think that every edit or revision to the draft requires unanimous support" is obviously wrong. Let's work together to make it as simple as possible, and something that we all agree about.--andreasegde (talk) 21:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Andreasegde, are you willing to make some specific comments that could be addressed? This is only a first draft, I am sure the final poll will address everyone's issues. You seem to think that every edit or revision to the draft requires unanimous support from all parties to the mediation, but I do not see that in any of the mediators comments. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- I propose that the above "Discussion and straw poll (draft)" should be closed, as it goes against the wishes of the mediators, which is to make this poll as simple as possible, to avoid any confusion.--andreasegde (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment: I've tried to improve the Options text and Argument section layout to make things as obvious as possible. Could people please contemplate whether the word "Straw" needs to be associated with this exercise? (My suggestion is to remove "straw".) Could I suggest to everyone here not to treat any one revision as the final version, and to realise that we are undertaking the process of preparing wording that others can decide is worth putting forward to the community as a poll? Accordingly, let's try as hard as possible to stick to the issues, and to debate concrete suggestions and poll text. Cheers. GFHandel ♬ 23:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any need for the word "straw". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with GabeMc as long as the options include all of the possibilities that could work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.135.28 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Editor has been blocked as a duck sock. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with GabeMc as long as the options include all of the possibilities that could work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.135.28 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see any need for the word "straw". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
- In none of the poll arguments should there be examples taken from Wikipedia. This poll will determine Wikipedia practise, so such examples are putting the cart before the horse. Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Except we're only determining consensus for Beatles topics. If there's already a consensus in regards to The Who, The Guess Who, etc. it should be noted. Hot Stop 14:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree. The various other "consensuses" have been in flux as has the guideline at MOS, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music and at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy. I think it's high time we looked outside the fishbowl to see what wiser heads have determined, specifically style guidelines written for large audiences. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- I too disagree. Wikipedia articles are not WP:RSs, and as such they have little to no bearing on this discussion/poll. We should use reliable secondary and primary sources to support the options, not other wikipedia articles. I think the only thing we can agree on here is that usage is mixed on wikipedia, therefore no attempt to declare a project consensus based on other articles on wikipedia should be used. Recently, a couple of editors went to Pink Floyd and changed many of the "t"s to "T"s, but before this action the article was mostly "t"s. Also, if you look back far enough, you will see that Beatles related articles used to have a lower-case definite article throughout, until several editors took it upon themselves to change this, hence the current contentious situation. See here for an AN/I report from 18 months ago where a user is complaining about the recent changes/edit warring in this regard. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Those other upper case Wikipedia instances also need changing. Rothorpe (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Moved from poll text
|
---|
|
Context argument as a 4th option
Collapsing - the IP who added the "both" option has been blocked for sockpuppetry. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Maybe we should discuss this, as it is a fourth option, and we do not want to be accused later of not covering all the bases now. IMO, this option would move the issue from an article page by article page discussion to an occurrence by occurrence discussion, multipling the problem ten-fold. Apple cannot even get this straight, from the 2009 liner notes:
PollThe purpose of this poll is to determine if there in any support for adding a fourth option to our mediation poll. The fourth option, Both, or the "context argument", suggests that capitalisation is determined at each occurence based on context. Oppose
Support Neutral
A poll about a poll within a poll? This is getting very, very silly. I agree with Jburlinson's way of dealing with this, as he's actually talking about proposals, rather than jumping in the deep end with masses of information splashed all over this page. As said above, we all have to agree, which can only be done by conversing.--andreasegde (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
|
EMI
EMI's timeline is included in support of upper case The. However, all mentions of the Beatles are also bolded: The Beatles, and there are references to 'the Edgar Broughton Band', etc., with lower case. So that's a dud example. Rothorpe (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Back to basics poll (proposal)
As the mediators proposed above, "The, the, neither", should be the first step, meaning presenting something in as simple a way as possible:
As this problem has been argued about for years, we ask you to chose one from the three below:
- Capitalised: "In 1966, The Beatles..."
- Small case: "In 1966, the Beatles..."
- Avoiding mid-sentence: "In 1966, the band/they.."'
--andreasegde (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Comments?
- I strongly suggest we avoid using it in a sentence as an example in the poll. If you contort a sentence into two forms, both will not be equally as pleasing, which could lead to bias. For example:
- "In August 1966, one week before their final tour, the Beatles released Revolver."
- "The Beatles released Revolver one week before their final tour, in August 1966."
~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with "The Beatles released Revolver one week before their final tour, in August 1966.--andreasegde (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)- IMO, your preferred version implies it was their final tour of August 1966, versus their final tour ever. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please disregard my comment above. IMO, your sentence examples are too long. They confuse the reader (as they did me).--andreasegde (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- "The Beatles released Revolver (comma) one week before their final tour (comma) in August 1966." Or: "The Beatles released Revolver in August 1966 (comma) one week before their final tour.” Both work--Patthedog (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC).
- "The Beatles released Revolver in August 1966, one week before their final tour." If that's too long, ok let's shorten it - the example can leave off "one week before their final tour"- but there is no problem to me with this longer construction. Not confusing, not awkward, perfectly fine. But in any case, I think we need to have full sentences in the examples, or people don't know what they are choosing from. Tvoz/talk 19:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- "The Beatles released Revolver (comma) one week before their final tour (comma) in August 1966." Or: "The Beatles released Revolver in August 1966 (comma) one week before their final tour.” Both work--Patthedog (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC).
- Please disregard my comment above. IMO, your sentence examples are too long. They confuse the reader (as they did me).--andreasegde (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- IMO, your preferred version implies it was their final tour of August 1966, versus their final tour ever. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The comments here should be about the Back to basics poll (proposal).--andreasegde (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Comments should focus on the content of the poll, not user conduct. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Arguments for "upper-case" and "neither"
Hello everyone, and thank you for your work on the poll so far! I think we have made very good progress. Still, at the moment the poll options are looking a little lopsided. At the moment we have a lot of work on the "arguments for lower-case" section, but hardly any work on the "arguments for upper-case", "arguments for neither", and "arguments against neither" sections. Feezo and I are of the opinion that the next thing we should do is to flesh out the arguments for the latter three sections. So, could editors refrain from editing the poll for now, apart from these three sections? Once we have all the arguments for the "arguments for upper-case", "arguments for neither", and "arguments against neither" sections laid down, we can take stock of our work and decide what the next steps should be. As usual, please let either Feezo or myself know if you have any questions about this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Have you looked at this? It is proposing that the poll should be as simple as possible.
- IMO, there should be no arguments for/against.
- AS per this staement, ""We" includes everyone here — that is, the poll options will be something all parties to the mediation agree on." Participants have not yet agreed that the form of the poll being proposed is the right way to go forward.--andreasegde (talk) 10:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree with Mr. Stradivarius in that good work has been done so far. It is quite proper to have for/against text, and it is concomitant on all parties to prepare their case for the poll to come. Of course, subsequent !votes are not limited to those cases, but they present an excellent and well-reasoned starting point for a well-publicized poll. Let's all work hard towards completing this once and for all so that we can all get back to why we are here: building an encyclopaedia for our readers. GFHandel ♬ 11:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me, GFHandel, but are you a participant in this mediation? Maybe I missed something.--andreasegde (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have to be a "participant" to help format the poll—which is all I've done. GFHandel ♬ 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Also, its my understanding that this is a public mediation in which anyone can participate, not just those who signed the list. Maybe Feezo or Strad can correct me here if I have misunderstood something. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have to be a "participant" to help format the poll—which is all I've done. GFHandel ♬ 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me, GFHandel, but are you a participant in this mediation? Maybe I missed something.--andreasegde (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It's clear that reliable sources cannot agree on the use of "The Beatles" or "the Beatles" in mid-sentence. The official Beatles web site at thebeatles.com uses "The Beatles" in new text, but archived text often use "the Beatles" such as with old music reviews. Because of the trade mark status of "The Beatles," we should use that in cases where we have to, but otherwise avoid use of that band's name in mid-sentence. Re-writing the text so it would begin with "The Beatles" is allowable as long as the rewording does not change the context or potentially mislead anyone. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please note that this comment is not relevant here as it pre-empts a result. What is happening here is the construction of a poll, so could editors please restrict their comments towards that goal? Thanks. GFHandel ♬ 20:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. I added a couple of thoughts to the section "for" capital-T. I may not agree with these thoughts, but they seem at least somewhat reasonable to me. I'll leave it to others to come up with the advantages of "neither." Jburlinson (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with GFHandel, lets try to stay on track here, this is not the time or place to debate the topic that in truth, has already been discussed ad nauseum. Further I would suggest that in nearly three years of editing Beatles related articles I have not seen even one person switch sides, not one. Lets collaborate on the poll, and lets try to stay on that track. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I thought I was trying to stay on track. My inserts into the poll were a response to the mediators' specific request for additional language in the "arguments for 'upper case' and "neither'" sections. I'm under the impression that the text for the poll is a "work in progress" to which we're all supposed to contribute. Am I wrong? If so, sorry for stepping out of line.Jburlinson (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- No worries Jburlinson, we appreciate your input, I don't think you stepped out-of-line at all, I think the idea here is that you should feel free to make edits to the unfinished sections, just refrain from making signed comments in the poll. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK. Understood. I'm learning, albeit slowly. I took my name off the entries. I guess I was assuming that whenever the poll was approved by consensus, somebody would strip the names out. Anybody should feel free to edit what I added for conciseness or better clarity.Jburlinson (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, I'm just learning this too, how could you have known. Also, you may well be correct, that any comments would be stripped out later anyway, but I think in general we want to retain your comments in the archive of this mediation, hence the discussion sub-section. At any rate, many of us have never done this before so don't worry about the learning curve. We are just glad that you are participating. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK. Understood. I'm learning, albeit slowly. I took my name off the entries. I guess I was assuming that whenever the poll was approved by consensus, somebody would strip the names out. Anybody should feel free to edit what I added for conciseness or better clarity.Jburlinson (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- No worries Jburlinson, we appreciate your input, I don't think you stepped out-of-line at all, I think the idea here is that you should feel free to make edits to the unfinished sections, just refrain from making signed comments in the poll. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I thought I was trying to stay on track. My inserts into the poll were a response to the mediators' specific request for additional language in the "arguments for 'upper case' and "neither'" sections. I'm under the impression that the text for the poll is a "work in progress" to which we're all supposed to contribute. Am I wrong? If so, sorry for stepping out of line.Jburlinson (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - IMO, the following statement is inaccurate and misleading: "The question to be decided is: Is the word "the" part of the band's official name? If so, then the word "the" is part of a proper name and, as such, needs to be capitalized whenever it occurs": 1) as far as I know we are not making any judgements on whether or not "the" is part of the band's name, and it is not on the list of issues to be addressed at this mediation. 2) this statement is implying that if one thinks that "the" is part of the band's name then therefore it should be capped, simple as that. I strongly suggest that this faulty logic either be removed or reworded so as to not mislead. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. The arguments (for or against) shouldn't start with sentiments such as "The question to be decided is". Those sorts of umbrella statements belong at the top of the poll text in accordance with the wishes of those who have requested the poll. The text should be rephrased to be in keeping with the spirit of the Arguments for Upper-case section, for example: " 'The' is considered to be part of the band's name and therefore should be capitalized", and readers of the poll can evaluate that as an argument. Of course, if that argument is proffered then those disputing that assertion would do well to add a point to the Arguments for Lower-case section providing a counterargument. GFHandel ♬ 22:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. I'll change the wording as suggested. The authoritative source in this case is the official Beatles web siteJburlinson (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be moved to a new place in the poll or re-worded, I think it needs to go. It is basically a set-up for the !voter, who is being instructed by the statement that if they think "the" is part of the band's name then they should !vote for "The", which is of course, not only misleading but also patently false. I am quite sure that the 45 books I own on the Beatles that use "the" aren't all taking the position that "the" is not actually part of the band's name. I think this should go altogether as there does not seem to be any justification for it, it misleads, confuses and is untrue. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, it is the right of each "side" to proffer arguments that they believe support their case. The whole point of building argument sections is so that each section can present arguments, and counter the points raised by the other section—with the aim that the reader will become fully informed before !voting. In the absence of consensus here, I believe it should be up to the mediators to remove points that they consider to be blatantly untrue or misleading. GFHandel ♬ 23:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I hear you, and I agree. The mediators should decide this specific point. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, it is the right of each "side" to proffer arguments that they believe support their case. The whole point of building argument sections is so that each section can present arguments, and counter the points raised by the other section—with the aim that the reader will become fully informed before !voting. In the absence of consensus here, I believe it should be up to the mediators to remove points that they consider to be blatantly untrue or misleading. GFHandel ♬ 23:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think it should be moved to a new place in the poll or re-worded, I think it needs to go. It is basically a set-up for the !voter, who is being instructed by the statement that if they think "the" is part of the band's name then they should !vote for "The", which is of course, not only misleading but also patently false. I am quite sure that the 45 books I own on the Beatles that use "the" aren't all taking the position that "the" is not actually part of the band's name. I think this should go altogether as there does not seem to be any justification for it, it misleads, confuses and is untrue. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Agree. I'll change the wording as suggested. The authoritative source in this case is the official Beatles web siteJburlinson (talk) 22:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've made some changes to the draft, adding a bit more background. They aren't "official" changes in any way, so feel free to remove/modify/discuss them, especially the "binding" clause. Really pleased with the effort everyone's put into this — keep it up, guys :) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest that if we do decide to attempt to make this poll binding that we do so on every !voter, not just the patries to the mediation. There are several parties who refused to participate in the mediation, and they could !vote without agreeing to be bound by their !vote, swaying the consensus while not in any agreement to resolve the issue. Short form: if you !vote in the poll you are agreeing to be bound by your !vote. Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we have the authority to do that, unless you can dig up a precedent. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not aware of any precedent in wikipedia that concluded that all editors should avoid mid-sentence usage of the subject of an article, when writing about the subject; however, we are currently gearing up to !vote to that issue. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- My question is, why can't it be binding across the board? I can't see the outcome of this poll, whichever way it goes, not having an impact on all the other bands that use the definite article. Incidentally, this is another good reason to advertise this thing as much as possible. Canvass the neighbourhood, if you will, make it binding on all articles and we'll never have to deal with it again. And, regardless of everyone's personal opinion, not dealing with it again should be everyone's goal. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I'm not aware of any precedent in wikipedia that concluded that all editors should avoid mid-sentence usage of the subject of an article, when writing about the subject; however, we are currently gearing up to !vote to that issue. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think we have the authority to do that, unless you can dig up a precedent. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I suggest that if we do decide to attempt to make this poll binding that we do so on every !voter, not just the patries to the mediation. There are several parties who refused to participate in the mediation, and they could !vote without agreeing to be bound by their !vote, swaying the consensus while not in any agreement to resolve the issue. Short form: if you !vote in the poll you are agreeing to be bound by your !vote. Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - I strongly oppose the addition of this statement to the arguments for "the": "Based on the above authoritative sources, it is clear that "the" is not part of the band's name and therefore should not be capitalized" - That is not the point of the argument whatsoever, and it appears to be the summation of said argument when in reality it is not at all. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, it should be removed. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Done. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- When you say "Done", please note that you have removed the issue from the Arguments for Lower-case section while retaining it in the Arguments for Upper-case section. Was that your intention? GFHandel ♬ 23:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I meant done in regards to the arguments for "the", I didn't want to mess with the arguments for "The", and since Feezo wasn't clear on that point I left it in. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't realize it was still there. If one is removed, then both should be. The only difference I see is that the "authoritative source" is the trademark registration, which is covered by the first bullet point. (This is purely my own opinion, of course.) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Done (removed from both the arguments for "the" and "The"). ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- The "authoritative source" is the official Beatles web site. There are other creditable sources, but this one seems pretty authoritative to me.
- The topic is germane to the poll because the second issue to be mediated is: "How Wikipedia's Manual of Style affects the choice of "the" or "The"". The MoS specifically refers to a determination from an authoritative source as to whether or not the word "the" is an official part of the band's name. (The example used in the MoS is The Velvet Underground.) People taking the poll need to consider this question in order to make an informed decision. If the word "the" is not considered by an authoritative source to be part of the band's name, then the entire issue under mediation is moot and there is no controversy at all.Jburlinson (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Jburlinson
- Jbulinson, are you suggesting that at www.thebeatles.com is evidence that "the" is not part of the band's name? If so can you please point out where exactly this is made clear. At any rate, this is not currently an issue to be mediated, so if you wish to add it to the list of issues to be mediated, I suggest you ask the mediators about it. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- GabeMc -- no, what I'm saying is that the official web site consistently uses upper-case "T", unless it's quoting text that uses lower-case "t". For example, the current homepage for the site contains the phrase: "The LP features 14 of The Beatles' most powerful rock songs spanning their entire trailblazing and influential catalogue..." Again, on the history page for 1969, there's the statement: "That the rift between The Beatles, evolved with much public angst was a pity but this is not a perfect world is it?" (I don't know why there's a comma after the word "Beatles," but I guess that's because it's not a perfect world.)Jburlinson (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Jbulinson, are you suggesting that at www.thebeatles.com is evidence that "the" is not part of the band's name? If so can you please point out where exactly this is made clear. At any rate, this is not currently an issue to be mediated, so if you wish to add it to the list of issues to be mediated, I suggest you ask the mediators about it. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Done (removed from both the arguments for "the" and "The"). ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Didn't realize it was still there. If one is removed, then both should be. The only difference I see is that the "authoritative source" is the trademark registration, which is covered by the first bullet point. (This is purely my own opinion, of course.) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I meant done in regards to the arguments for "the", I didn't want to mess with the arguments for "The", and since Feezo wasn't clear on that point I left it in. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- When you say "Done", please note that you have removed the issue from the Arguments for Lower-case section while retaining it in the Arguments for Upper-case section. Was that your intention? GFHandel ♬ 23:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Done. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, it should be removed. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 23:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Jburlinson, to state that "the official web site consistently uses upper-case "T"" is not accurate.
- From www.thebeatles.com: Please Please Me, With The Beatles, A Hard Day's Night, Beatles For Sale, the White Album and Yellow Submarine. Those are the official summaries of six of their twelve UK studio LPs, all use only small "t". The other six summaries are mixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- From www.thebeatles.com; History: 1965 mixed, 1967 small-case, 1968 mixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
At any rate, I am still not seeing how www.thebeatles.com supports the argument that "the" is not part of their official name, or how this relates to the mediation at hand. Can you clarify your point here please. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- OK. I'll amend my comment to "the official web site frequently uses...". It's not consistent, one way or the other. However, many of the instances of small "t" in the album pages are quotes from either NME or WikiPedia. In fairness, I'll admit that many instances of capital "T" are part of quotes as well. What is consistent is the use of the definite article in one form or the other. I'm not trying to say that www.thebeatles.com supports "the" not being part of the official name. Actually, I've been saying just the opposite. According to this "authoritative source," the word "the" is part of the name; in fact, it frequently, if not exclusively, uses capital T "The". I've already explained how I think this relates to the mediation, but, since comments and retorts are flying back and forth at a pretty brisk pace, it might have gotten overlooked. Here it is again: The topic is germane to the poll because the second issue to be mediated is: "How Wikipedia's Manual of Style affects the choice of "the" or "The"". The MoS specifically refers to a determination from an authoritative source as to whether or not the word "the" is an official part of the band's name. (The example used in the MoS is The Velvet Underground vs. Black Sabbath.) People taking the poll need to consider this question in order to make an informed decision. If the word "the" is not considered by an authoritative source to be part of the band's name, then the entire issue under mediation is moot and there is no controversy at all. Jburlinson (talk) 01:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment: Please everyone try not to get into a "yes it is", "no it isn't" loop here. This exercise is about working evidence into the poll text argument sections—not debating the efficacy of that evidence. If someone is not happy about some text and consensus cannot easily be resolved here, then they should seek assistance from the mediators (and I've started a section below for that). Also note that this is worth getting right and the poll text doesn't have to be finalized today (so taking a break while others comment is always an option). GFHandel ♬ 01:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I'll be honest and admit that I'm not across the full history of this (and I suspect that there is too much history to get on top of it all now), but I'm going to be bold and suggest that the poll text should be able to raise the issue of whether the definite article is part of the band's name. We're not talking about mathematical proofs here, so all each case can do is present evidence to support their claims (with the mediators to decide if any evidence is clearly untrue or misleading). The problem with not covering the issue in the poll text (at least to some extent) is that the issue will surely be raised in comments by editors when the poll opens, and therefore it is essential that they have some guidance and evidence to consider when commenting. If the question of whether the definite article is part of the band's name is really the key issue (and I suspect it is), then perhaps the mediators can work that into the statement of the poll's aims? If that was done, it would mean that the issue doesn't have to be worked into the poll text because it would be something that would fall out of the poll result (based on other evidence). Anyhow, obviously up to the editors who are across all the history. GFHandel ♬ 02:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, to clarify, are you (Jburlinson and GFHandel) saying that the "authoritative source" for the argument that "the" is not part of the band name is www.thebeatles.com? Why thebeatles.com and not beatles.com then? Are there any other sources that support this? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not commenting on that either way. What I'm saying is that evidence should be presented in the poll text (by all sides) so that when the issue comes up in the minds of the !voters, they have as much guidance as possible to form an opinion. If one side doesn't believe that the other side's evidence text is accurate, they can point that out in their own text. If one side believes that the other side's evidence text is downright false or too misleading, they can point that out (below) to the mediators who can make a call. (And incidentally, www.thebeatles.com and www.beatles.com resolve to the same page.) GFHandel ♬ 03:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you in principle, that's why I opened the "Context argument as a 4th option" sub-section above, as its not a completely ridiculous notion (it appears to be what Apple is doing) and a reasonable !voter may well have simliar concerns. I would also like to cover as many bases as we can here, but I predict others will complain about the added complexity as a confusing factor, likely to be used later as fodder against the results, maybe I'm wrong about this. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not commenting on that either way. What I'm saying is that evidence should be presented in the poll text (by all sides) so that when the issue comes up in the minds of the !voters, they have as much guidance as possible to form an opinion. If one side doesn't believe that the other side's evidence text is accurate, they can point that out in their own text. If one side believes that the other side's evidence text is downright false or too misleading, they can point that out (below) to the mediators who can make a call. (And incidentally, www.thebeatles.com and www.beatles.com resolve to the same page.) GFHandel ♬ 03:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- Question: Above it states "The Beatles" is a registered trade mark of Apple Corps Ltd. Are trademarks really case sensitive? Would the strength of a trademark infringement case depend on whether "The Beatles", "the Beatles", "Beatles", "Beatle", "THE BEATLES", "BEATLES", "BEATLE", or any other derivative was used? Could someone please provide a reliable source on this? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that this needs to be figured out properly. I tried this search, but I get "Service unavailable!" whenever I try to view something from the search results. Perhaps others will have more luck eventually? Until then, I've added {{Citation needed}} until something decisive is determined. GFHandel ♬ 00:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I deal with (United States) copyright and trademark issues quite a lot in my work, and I can tell you that, regardless of what capitalisation scheme is used in the official registration, all variations of "The Beatles" are protected, and any lawsuits would almost certainly be decided accordingly. (Most trademark registrations for particular words or phrases will use all-caps variants of the text, not that it's relevant.) Again, fair use exemptions allow third-party sources like Wikipedia and music journalists to use the mark in their own work, provided that there is no chance of confusion as to something being an officially licensed product, and that their use of the mark does not measurably detract from Apple's own products which use it. Capitalisation is not a trademark issue, and trademark is not a capitalisation issue. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, but I suspect that the issue is whether "the beatles" (no caps on purpose) has been trademarked. If it has, then one argument for upper-case is that "the" is part of the band's name (at least to some degree as far as Apple Corps is concerned). I'm suggesting that evidence (either way) needs to be worked into the poll text so that this is not a reason for speculation during the poll discussion. Certainly such discussion has been part of previous poll comments. GFHandel ♬ 01:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, how about this approach: If "Beatles" is trade marked, then whose to say that when we use their name we aren't using "Beatles" and adding a definite article before "Beatles" to construct a proper sentence? E.g. In 1966, the "Beatles" released Revolver, with "the" being an essential part of proper grammar here and "Beatles" being the trade marked name. Any thoughts? (FTR, I do not think TMs apply here at all, but it is a topic that needs to be discussed). ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) All the results I get from clicking the link you posted consistently use "BEATLES" and "THE BEATLES", except for the first result, which appears to be a court decision somehow related to the Yellow Submarine film, which uses "the Beatles" in running prose. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Also, if the trade mark issue is really a determiner here, then why does Apple use both upper and lower-case on both their website and in the 2009 remaster liner notes? If Apple does not insist on an upper-case definite article throughout then why in the world would we? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, but I suspect that the issue is whether "the beatles" (no caps on purpose) has been trademarked. If it has, then one argument for upper-case is that "the" is part of the band's name (at least to some degree as far as Apple Corps is concerned). I'm suggesting that evidence (either way) needs to be worked into the poll text so that this is not a reason for speculation during the poll discussion. Certainly such discussion has been part of previous poll comments. GFHandel ♬ 01:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- I deal with (United States) copyright and trademark issues quite a lot in my work, and I can tell you that, regardless of what capitalisation scheme is used in the official registration, all variations of "The Beatles" are protected, and any lawsuits would almost certainly be decided accordingly. (Most trademark registrations for particular words or phrases will use all-caps variants of the text, not that it's relevant.) Again, fair use exemptions allow third-party sources like Wikipedia and music journalists to use the mark in their own work, provided that there is no chance of confusion as to something being an officially licensed product, and that their use of the mark does not measurably detract from Apple's own products which use it. Capitalisation is not a trademark issue, and trademark is not a capitalisation issue. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
Outcome: the mediators have asked andreasdge to withdraw from the mediation. This decision is based purely on what we see as being in the best interests of the mediation. In particular, we do not find fault with andreasdge, nor any other involved party. If the participants have any questions about this decision, or any other concerns regarding user conduct, we ask them to email us directly. |
Issues requiring mediator assistance1:Why is GFHandel in this mediation? The mediators should look at this talk page.--andreasegde (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 2: I do not agree with presenting arguments in a poll; there have been enough of those, and it will only inspire those being polled to join in.--andreasegde (talk) 03:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC) My comments are for the mediators, and for them alone. Please do not reply to them.--andreasegde (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate it very much if this space was left for the mediators to comment.--andreasegde (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Further comments
|
Miscellaneous issues to be discussed
- Issue - As ordering the options would be inherently hierarchical, and thus potential for bias could arise from an option's particular place in the running order, I suggest that when the time comes, the order of the options be randomly determined. Also, they should not be numbered or lettered. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
- As far as upper/lower sure. But logically the neither one should go last. Hot Stop 14:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why should any of the three options have an advantage over the other two? A random order is the only way to ensure fairness to all three options. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Concern -- On Aug. 14, I added the following point to the evidence for upper case section of the poll: *The current Wikipedia Manual of Style states that lower-case should be used. This did not resolve the controversy long-term. Inconsistencies abound. Many editors apparently instinctively resist failing to capitalize the "T" in "The" if they believe that the word "The" is an official part of a band's name."
- This was summarily deleted with a comment that it was biased and tended to "lead" the Ivoter. It seems to me that all the "evidence" being adduced here is an attempt to influence the voter. I thought we were supposed to be constructing a poll that would provide the voter with food for thought as he/she makes a decision. We (the people constructing the poll) don't have to agree with all the points; we're simply putting forward ideas and trusting that the voter will use their good judgment.
- One of the points against the "neither" option (the "triangular diplomacy" option) is that it's failed to resolve the controversy. The same could be said about the current MoS -- it also has failed to eliminate inconsistent usage. Depending on the outcome of the poll and the mediation, it's entirely possible that the MoS might be revised. It seems to me that it would need to be revised if the outcome of the poll were in favor of either the "upper case" or the "neither" option.
- Finally, a participant unilaterally deleting a submission with no opportunity for give and take doesn't seem to accord with the spirit of this mediation process. Jburlinson (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- If I could chime in here with some non-official comments, the first issue seems to be the difference between "persuade" and "manipulate". That is, even though the purpose of the sections is to be "biased" in favor of a particular view, they should present their cases in an honest, forthright way. The phrasing
generates more heat than light. This is due to the fact that it attributes undemonstrated motives to the opposing party. "Inconsistencies abound" is too terse to be useful. To address the issue of whether it was appropriate to delete it, I suggest that a "one revert rule" on the poll text be considered as the best compromise between expedience and cooperation. In other words, any editor is free to add, delete, or change text (with an explanation, even just in the edit summary), and any other editor is free to revert it — once. If the first editor still prefers the other version, it then has to be discussed here, just as editors on a controversial article are expected to "take it to the talk page" instead of revert warring. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 20:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Inconsistencies abound. Many editors apparently instinctively resist failing to capitalize the "T" in "The" if they believe that the word "The" is an official part of a band's name."
- OK. How about if I re-insert the point leaving out the offending phrases? Jburlinson (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- If I could chime in here with some non-official comments, the first issue seems to be the difference between "persuade" and "manipulate". That is, even though the purpose of the sections is to be "biased" in favor of a particular view, they should present their cases in an honest, forthright way. The phrasing
- Comment -- This mediation has been an interesting and instructive process. After the mediators specifically requested participants to come up with additional "evidence" for the "upper case" and "neither" options, I have attempted to do so, in the spirit of fair play and balance. Nearly every single attempt to provide such input has been challenged in one way or another. Sometimes the disputes have taken place in the appropriate discussion sections below, which seems reasonable enough to me. But often, submissions have been edited with no explanation and even deleted outright with minimal comment, and certainly no consensus that I can see. The latest deletion is a particularly interesting one, since part of the point being made by the deleted passage was retooled as a point against the "neither" option.
I now notice that part of the historical record regarding this latest deletion has itself been deleted.Jburlinson (talk) 23:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Jburlinson, we all appreciate your efforts here and we want you to participate. IMO, the issues with your additions are derived from a perceived lack of objectivity of the statements. Avoid speculation, personal opinions and WP:OR. Use WP:RSs to make statements of unambiguously verifiable fact that do not lead, manipulate, or otherwise instruct the !voter how to think. If you can add factual statements that are backed by WP:RSs then I predict fewer of your additions will be challenged or removed. Again, thanks for participating, but try to make your contributions less manipulative. For example, you suggested that the "Neither" option is uncontroversial: 1) The poll language should not be advising the !voter as to which options are more or less controversial, 2) Go to the Rolling Stones article and tell them that they cannot use the band's name mid-sentence and you will see how inaccurate it is to state that "Neither" avoids controversy. 3) Please do not use other wikipedia articles as evidence for anything, they are not reliable sources and should not be used here. Afterall, the definite articles in the Paul McCartney article are all small-case mid-sentence, but is that really evidence for "the"? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- re: you suggested that the "Neither" option is uncontroversial: When did I ever suggest such a thing? I've never said that this option is uncontroversial. Obviously, all of the options are controversial; that's why there's so much controversy. Jburlinson (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- For example, you added this: From a stylistic perspective, repetition of the band's name in mid-sentence can become wearying through redundancy. Use of a pronoun (e.g. "they", "them") or anaphora ("the group", "the band") is not only a simple expedient to avoid the controversy, but, in many cases, can lead to more graceful prose. Which is implying that "Neither" avoids controversy and leads to "more graceful prose", the first assertion is untrue, and the second applies to all options and is not exclusive to "Neither". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- No -- I wasn't implying that "neither" avoids all controversy; I was stating that it avoids the specific controversy that is the subject of this mediation: "the/The" when used in mid-sentence. That's why I used the definite article in the phrase: "a simple expedient to avoid the controversy". "The" controversy in this case is the one we're all involved in. I think that's why "triangular diplomacy" was dreamed up in the first place, as an expedient to finesse the disagreement on lower-case/upper-case "t". That it generated even more controversy is kind of ironic. Jburlinson (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Would it be acceptable if we simply say that the "Neither" option "Avoids the capitalization controversy"? Another argument for "Neither" might be something like: "By choosing to use neither style, Wikipedia recognizes that there exists a genuine controversy, and avoids linguistic prescription." Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's a great suggestion. Thanks. Jburlinson (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) While "Neither" may avoid the capitalisation controversy, it merely shifts the issue to one of grammar/sentence structure. Its really just swapping one controversy for another, so I am against suggesting or singling out any of the three options as more or less controversial. That would be leading the !voter, IMO. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Does the version I suggested (which Jburlinson put up) work for you?Oops, I guess it doesn't. Okay, basically what I mean by it "avoiding linguistic prescription" is that since reliable sources have used both versions, we avoid "taking sides" and implicitly recommending one style over the other. Yes, the "Neither" option is controversial — but that controversy is internal to Wikipedia. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)- (ec) No, it does not. I stand by my comments that we should not lead the !voter by declaring "Neither" the option that avoids controversy, it did not avoid controversy. Also, how does "Neither" "avoid linguistic prescription"? That's exactly what it does, it prescribes how we can construct sentences. At any rate, I've stated my case here and I will let others weigh-in. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think we have a minor miscommunication here — of course "Neither" prescribes how articles should be written. That's why I'm personally against it. But it's prescriptive only in the context of writing articles on Wikipedia. In other words, adopting it as a solution avoids the potential for people to say "Wikipedia uses The/the Beatles. That must be the 'official' style." If the articles are well written, the casual reader will never notice the absence of "The/the Beatles". Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have to admit that I'm not sure what the disagreement is all about. If the evidence and arguments aren't meant to lead the !voter, then why are we bothering to call them "evidence" and "arguments"? The only other potential solution I can see is to just open a poll without comment on the options' respective merits, with links to previous discussions on the topic. And that would seem like an unprofessional way of handling this thing, in my opinion.
- That said, any "leading" that is done ought to be accurate. Since the "neither" standard is the one we've been operating under for quite some time, and since we're here, it's clear that it didn't avoid controversy. Perhaps we could add some more background on the most recent "consensus", as I think that option is really the only one that has been tested in the field, so to speak.
- But even assuming that "Neither" does avoid the capitalisation controversy (and I'm not convinced that it does), all we really end up with is confusion. New content writers that show up are going to use either "the Beatles" or "The Beatles" mid-sentence at some point, and we'll be back here. It's a total non-solution. Always has been, so let's not sugar-coat it. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think we have a minor miscommunication here — of course "Neither" prescribes how articles should be written. That's why I'm personally against it. But it's prescriptive only in the context of writing articles on Wikipedia. In other words, adopting it as a solution avoids the potential for people to say "Wikipedia uses The/the Beatles. That must be the 'official' style." If the articles are well written, the casual reader will never notice the absence of "The/the Beatles". Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) No, it does not. I stand by my comments that we should not lead the !voter by declaring "Neither" the option that avoids controversy, it did not avoid controversy. Also, how does "Neither" "avoid linguistic prescription"? That's exactly what it does, it prescribes how we can construct sentences. At any rate, I've stated my case here and I will let others weigh-in. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Would it be acceptable if we simply say that the "Neither" option "Avoids the capitalization controversy"? Another argument for "Neither" might be something like: "By choosing to use neither style, Wikipedia recognizes that there exists a genuine controversy, and avoids linguistic prescription." Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- No -- I wasn't implying that "neither" avoids all controversy; I was stating that it avoids the specific controversy that is the subject of this mediation: "the/The" when used in mid-sentence. That's why I used the definite article in the phrase: "a simple expedient to avoid the controversy". "The" controversy in this case is the one we're all involved in. I think that's why "triangular diplomacy" was dreamed up in the first place, as an expedient to finesse the disagreement on lower-case/upper-case "t". That it generated even more controversy is kind of ironic. Jburlinson (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- For example, you added this: From a stylistic perspective, repetition of the band's name in mid-sentence can become wearying through redundancy. Use of a pronoun (e.g. "they", "them") or anaphora ("the group", "the band") is not only a simple expedient to avoid the controversy, but, in many cases, can lead to more graceful prose. Which is implying that "Neither" avoids controversy and leads to "more graceful prose", the first assertion is untrue, and the second applies to all options and is not exclusive to "Neither". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- re: you suggested that the "Neither" option is uncontroversial: When did I ever suggest such a thing? I've never said that this option is uncontroversial. Obviously, all of the options are controversial; that's why there's so much controversy. Jburlinson (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- Jburlinson, we all appreciate your efforts here and we want you to participate. IMO, the issues with your additions are derived from a perceived lack of objectivity of the statements. Avoid speculation, personal opinions and WP:OR. Use WP:RSs to make statements of unambiguously verifiable fact that do not lead, manipulate, or otherwise instruct the !voter how to think. If you can add factual statements that are backed by WP:RSs then I predict fewer of your additions will be challenged or removed. Again, thanks for participating, but try to make your contributions less manipulative. For example, you suggested that the "Neither" option is uncontroversial: 1) The poll language should not be advising the !voter as to which options are more or less controversial, 2) Go to the Rolling Stones article and tell them that they cannot use the band's name mid-sentence and you will see how inaccurate it is to state that "Neither" avoids controversy. 3) Please do not use other wikipedia articles as evidence for anything, they are not reliable sources and should not be used here. Afterall, the definite articles in the Paul McCartney article are all small-case mid-sentence, but is that really evidence for "the"? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you elaborate on why you're not convinced that "Neither" "avoid[s] the capitalisation controversy"? It doesn't avoid the whole controversy (clearly, since we're here) but it does "avoid" (or perhaps "dodge") the choice between "The" and "the". Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC) Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 22:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- From the Beatles:
Stu Sutcliffe ... suggested changing the band's name to Beatals as a tribute to Buddy Holly and the Crickets.[10] They used the name through May, when they became the Silver Beetles, before undertaking a brief tour of Scotland as the backing group for pop singer and fellow Liverpudlian Johnny Gentle. By early July they changed their name to the Silver Beatles, and by the middle of August to The Beatles.[11]
Under "Neither", how would this paragraph even be possible? If this option precludes specific types of sentences, then its controversial to me. On the other hand, both "the" and "The" do not hinder or constrain prose, and use of either would not change this paragraph. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
- I guess I should clarify on that. In my opinion, the whole "Neither" option has been an ineffective nonstarter since it was first proposed. The original wording of the consensus was that "mid-sentence usage of the/The Beatles" should be "minimized". As I've pointed out a few times, to minimize something is not to render it nonexistent. The lead sections of the articles for each individual band member are a perfect example. John Lennon's:
So, how do we work around that in the event that "neither" wins the poll? I see two solutions:John Winston Ono Lennon, MBE (9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980) was an English musician, singer and songwriter who rose to worldwide fame as a founder member of The Beatles...
orJohn Winston Ono Lennon, MBE (9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980) was an English musician, singer and songwriter who rose to worldwide fame as a founder member of a certain band...
I could be wrong, but if the "Neither" option is going to be enforced, I can't see how it could get much better than that. I am open to suggestions and clarifications, of course. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)The Beatles were a band whose founding line-up included John Winston Ono Lennon, MBE (9 October 1940 – 8 December 1980), who was an English musician, singer and songwriter...
- I guess I should clarify on that. In my opinion, the whole "Neither" option has been an ineffective nonstarter since it was first proposed. The original wording of the consensus was that "mid-sentence usage of the/The Beatles" should be "minimized". As I've pointed out a few times, to minimize something is not to render it nonexistent. The lead sections of the articles for each individual band member are a perfect example. John Lennon's:
- I think it boils down to this: all three options are controversial depending on who you ask, but only "Neither" restricts and constrains prose. So if we insist on including: "Avoids the controversy of 'The/the' mid-sentence", as evidence for "Neither", then we should also include: "Avoids the controversy of 'Neither', which mandates a prohibition against mid-sentence usage of the band's name", as evidence for "the" and "The". ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Support for "Neither"
In the last few days, there's been a fair amount of discussion by opponents of the "Neither" option. Although the mediators share their views, we are equally intent on giving a fair hearing to the option's proponents. The poll was created with 3 options due to the reaction against the mediators' original dismissal of "Neither". Supporters of "Neither" are thus invited to identify themselves in this section, and to respond to the arguments that have been raised against it. If there is still support for "Neither", I ask that opponents not make rebuttals in this section, but either in "Miscellaneous issues", or a new section. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Comments on Support for "Neither"
- I am not a proponent of "neither" as an option in the poll. I have, however, made some suggestions for evidence for "neither", primarily because the mediators asked for such suggestions. Although my arguments did not convince myself, I thought they might have been appropriate to someone who favored this option. To be honest, I'm not sure if the original idea for "neither" or what used to be called "triangular diplomacy" actually intended to flat out prohibit the use of the band's name in mid-sentence at all times, but only to encourage editors to minimize its use in order to dampen the proliferation of inconsistencies in dozens of articles. For that reason, I don't believe the original proponents of the compromise would have been pleased to have it used to inflame a further controversy, but maybe I'm misreading their motives.
- At any rate, I'd like to suggest a further compromise -- to wit:
- Delete "neither" as a third option in the poll, but add a note of some sort to the "Editor comments" section of the poll that would state something like: "Previous attempts to resolve this controversy have included a "gentleman's agreement" to minimize use of the band's name in mid-sentence. While this ingenious diplomatic effort might have limited the proliferation of inconsistent usages, it did not resolve the controversy and it cannot be considered as a definitive solution. Editors are always free to employ this strategy for stylistic purposes; but it is not an option in this poll because there are situations in which it is impossible to avoid the use of the band's name in running prose, and the WP community needs to arrive at a consensus on standard usage." Jburlinson (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
- If there's no support for "Neither" in the next few days, I'll go ahead and implement Jburlinson's suggestion in the following way (feel free to tweak). Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 01:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Previous attempts to resolve this controversy have included a "gentleman's agreement" to minimize use of the band's name in mid-sentence. Although this agreement resulted in a "truce" for a little over a year, the resulting formal mediation case shows that it did not ultimately resolve the issue.
More seriously, "minimization" of mid-sentence usage is only a workable solution if it is interpreted as a mandatory ban on all mid-sentence usage of "The/the Beatles". During mediation, it was concluded that this would place an excessive restriction of language on a large, indeterminate number of articles. Such a restriction would necessitate major, far-reaching changes to Wikipedia's manual of style, and would require a sitewide RfC at minimum.
For these reasons, the choice of "minimizing mid-sentence usage" is not an option in this poll.