Talk:Edge Games/Archive 2

Edgegamers legal issues.
Should notation be made of his forcing edgegamers.org, a video game clan, to change over to edge-gamers.com and surrender their old domain? Coolgamer (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Only if it's reported in reliable sources. GDallimore (Talk) 08:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be used to attack a company
Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle to attack a company. Not only were the attacks not accurate or only gave one biased side of events, but the game industry is full of companies who have disputes and we do not list those disputes in other game company's entries. There is no excusable basis to single Edge Games out and to assist those who are attacking the company. The entry should be a simple fact-based one summarising key facts such as start date, business areas, sample products, etc, as is common for most other game companies listed in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paravers (talk • contribs) 19:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, and thanks for coming to the talk page - so few editors do! Agreed that attack pages are a bad idea. BUT an article about a company should reflect what the sources say about that company. As far as I can tell, the article is fairly based on the available sources. If you can identify sources which are not WP:Reliable sources or which are not being used in the article in an WP:Neutral Point of View manner, or can find additional sources which defend Edge, please do bring them to this talk page so that the article can be improved. I do not believe that wholesale removal of content is the way forward in this case, however. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 19:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there's a vast amount of RS from industry publications on the various topics covered. Obviously this was a topic of considerable public interest, and hence that should be reflected here. It all seems pretty factual to me. Maybe it could do with some tidying up though. Oberono (talk) 01:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I find a problem with this logic. This is not an attack page on the company, more of an attack page on one person from the company. This should only bring up lawsuits focusing around the company, rather than Langdell. Akjar13 (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I recall, some investigations into the company led to conclusion that Edge Games/Edge Interactive effectively IS Tim Langdell. --46.112.252.165 (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Trademarks reclaimed, or???
Edge Games' website (as it is now) states: EDGE™/THE EDGE™/EDGE GAMES™ (c) 2012 BOBBY BEARING, EDGE, THE EDGE, EDGE GAMES, EDGEGAMERS are trademarks of EDGE/THE EDGE. (c) 1986, 2003, 2012. The site still lists a number of licensees, and it appears Trend Micro at least has not received the notification of the trademark's cancellation - their website continues to state the EDGE trademark is under license from Edge Games. Additionally, USPTO registry shows the trademarks as Live - albeit with "cancellation pending" since around last year.--46.112.252.165 (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

New Edits
The original Edge Games page contained an extremely large number of errors and seems to have been authored by contributors whose main goal was to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack this company and its officers. That is not a fair or acceptable use of Wikipedia. I note that prior contributors (Paravers for example) have also noted that the page contained gross errors and clear defamation, but I see he was ignored. Since the errors were so numerous, I felt it best to trim the entry down to an accurate minimum with a view to building it back up in a fair and accurate manner.

Among the gross inaccuracies in the original longer entry are: (1) Edge Games is not a company, it is a corporate and product brand name (think "Atari"). The main company seems to be Edge Interactive Media, Inc; (2) In addition to 'Edge Games' there are the associated 'Edge' and 'The Edge' brands; (3) The brands were created in 1984, so I have followed the guideline of the Atari page to reflect this fact -- in any event in no sense at all was the brand 'Edge Games' founded in 1990, so that was just inaccurate (see the edgegames.com website); (4) It was never true, and was only ever a malicious rumor, that Edge Games or its CEO had a track record of aggressively protecting the mark Edge - as Langdell stated to the press in 2010, Edge Games has never sued anyone other than Future and EA, and never asked any company for payment for trademark licenses; (5) Edge Games has consistently published games using the Edge Games, Edge and The Edge brands over the entire period since 1984, so it was completely false that Edge had not published any games since 1993 or that Racers was the first game since 1993. That was just a malicious entry on the page here; (6) Edge has obviously continued to publish games at all times, most recently Bobby Bearing 2 for iOS; (6) So there has never been any truth to the malicious rumor that Edge or Langdell acted as a 'trademark troll' - for that to be true the mark would not be used and the company would demand money and sue people to get it -- in contrast it is now shown that Edge never sued anyone, never asked for money, and used its mark Edge itself at all times; (7) It has also become general knowledge since 2009/2010 when the longer malicious entry was first put up that Future Publishing colluded with EA and Mobigame to attack Edge and Langdell, deliberately fabricating the false impression of wrong doing by Edge/Langdell (see the quote by Mobigame in the 2011 book "Buttonless" where he admits to colluding with EA and Future); (8) It is now known that Future Publishing demanded that Edge sue EA and sue Mobigame, and then when Edge took the action Future had insisted it do, Future then sided with EA and Mobigame against Edge; (9) Edge's trademarks in the US have not been cancelled, and in fact three years after EA tried to get a court order to cancel them the marks are still live - EA's court ruling was found to be void because Future was a co-owner of the trademarks EA was trying to get cancelled. There are numerous other errors in the prior version, and so I will be researching the issues carefully and seeking to construct a new fuller-entry that this time is entirely accurate, fair, balanced and is not a platform for defaming Edge and its corporate officers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertisis (talk • contribs) 00:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have reverted you edits, it removed a vast quantity of sourced material, every citation and left the article looking like a piece of corporate PR for Edge games. I have alerted the Video Games Wikiproject to the article and they will no doubt examine the article and amend it if necessary. - X201 (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah... some of the points above are probably true (mainly the less material ones), but seeing as this poster is quite certainly an employee/contractor of Edge Games (sorry, Edge Interactive Media, Inc), I'm not inclined to care overmuch. Not to mention, how many ways can you dance around the fact that they C&D'd games that used the word edge anywhere in the title? That's some crazy hair-splitting up there- "didn't ask for money" indeed. While we're here though- seeing as this company makes games as well as C&D notices, shouldn't there be a list of games/a discussion of the games made by the company? -- Pres N  18:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

New Edits -- removal of false and deliberately defamatory text
I see my prior edits were reversed out despite my proving that this Wikipedia Entry to Edge Games contains malicious information solely intended to defame Langdell and his company Edge. The simple fact is that the information that has been permitted to remain up on this page for some time now is completely false. For instance, Edge Games is not a company it is a corporate and brand name. This new edit accurately reflects that fact and gives the true history and current status of who created the brand Edge Games (c.f. "Atari" which is similar), and who currently owns the brand along with the associated brands EDGE and THE EDGE.

There never was any truth to the assertion that Edge Games had not published any games since the early 1990s until the launch of "RACERS" in 2009. That was a false rumor that was spread -- probably by EA or Future Publishing (the companies Edge was in a fight with at the time) -- whereas the clear truth that can easily be determined from Edge's website is that Edge continued to publish games throughout the 1990s, 2000s and is still publishing games now.

As to the law suits and trademark disputes, I have deleted this for now since what was there was put there by people maliciously seeking to defame Langdell and help the cause of Mobigame, EA and Future, each of which/whom were in a dispute with Edge/Langdell and stood to gain by these facts being stated. The truth though is that Future Publishing forced Edge/Langdell to take action against Mobigame and EA and then turned around and expressed mock horror when Langdell did what they had told him to do. Various blogs and websites are compiling evidence that this is true (e.g. I have seen EdgeTruth.blogspot.com) and I propose we let the true picture emerge through those investigations before putting any of this information about law suits and the trademark dispute back up. If it is true that EA and Future deliberately mislead the courts, and used this Wikipedia page to convince those judges to take a negative view toward Langdell, then it would be contrary to our guidelines to then further aid such underhand actions by putting the results of the law suits back up on the page. I also note that other companies (including EA) who have had numerous legal matters that cast them in a negative light, do not have any such negative comments put on their Wiki pages).

I have also removed the false statements about the IGDA and Langdell's membership. Langdell himself stated that he resigned from the IGDA Board and then from the IGDA. But whether he resigned first or was voted out first, it is noteworthy that the IGDA Board at that time was heavily influenced by an EA employee being on the Board who had a vested interest in convincing his fellow Board members to vote Langdell out. Again, I do not think this page should be used to further EA's attack on Langdell, or Future Publishing or Mobigame's attacks on Langdell either.

And last, I point to the book "BUTTONLESS" published in 2011 in which David Papazian of Mobigame is quoted as admitting that he colluded with EA and Future Publishing to bring Langdell down. Clearly, from the quote, Papazian is admitting he and the corporations did things he does not wish to elaborate on so as to convince the public and the courts that Langdell is a Trademark Troll, whereas in fact there is no evidence at all Langdell ever acted as a Troll. There is no evidence he ever demanded money from anyone (Mobigame cannot be considered a reliable source), or that Edge/Langdell ever accepted money or failed to use their own marks. And very last, I have removed the opening line that styled Langdell as litigious since that too is clearly a knowingly false statement given that there is no evidence that Langdell has ever sued anyone, and Edge Games is on record as only ever suing Future Publishing in 1994, and suing EA in 2010 at the specific insistence of Future who instructed Edge/Langdell to sue EA on their joint behalf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertisis (talk • contribs) 14:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Vertisis Edits should remain
I have this page on "watch" and noted that Vertisis had edited it. I see that almost immediately someone reversed the edit. This is clearly a wrong decision since reading Vertisis' notes it is obvious that he was just correcting gross errors and defamatory text in the previous version. To put the false information back up on this page was clearly a wrong decision.

Vertisis made solid points that I was easily able to check regarding Edge Games being a brand, not a corporation, being created in 1984, not a company formed in 1990, that Langdell was never litigious, that Edge Games did produce games continuously since 1984 (which the prior version falsely stated wasnt true) etc.

Clearly Vertisis' edit should be permitted to be the current version of this page at least until the true facts can be worked out. Putting back up the old page with all its false and defamatory information is not right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaseft (talk • contribs) 14:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "I have this page on "watch" and noted that Vertisis had edited it." - but this was your first edit to Wikipedia, and your account was only created a few minutes previously. Do you mean that you had it on "watch" from another account, and have created a second account solely to make this revert? --McGeddon (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I don't usually make edits so I didn't have an account. But when I saw Vertisis had made a completely reasonable edit to this clearly error-filled page and then saw you reverse the edit, I decided to create the account to reverse what I feel is clearly a wrong decision. My "watch" is separate from Wikipedia, its a website watch service I subscribe to. I do feel you were wrong to just simply reverse the edit since it is clear Vertisis has some very strong points. To just reverse the edit is to leave up some obviously untrue information. Looking at the history of this page, it is clear it has been used to attack Edge Games/Langdell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaseft (talk • contribs) 15:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The fact is that both Vertisis and Gamaseft did not just remove content that could be justified as "libelous" and "error-filled", but instead wiped out the entire page, including a lot of factual information that is directly sourced to reliable public articles. This was not correcting "gross errors", which could be discussed and worked with, it was trying to do a history cleaning of the company. Especially when added to the nebulous outside "watch list", it is plainly clear that both Vertisis and Gamaseft's aims are not to correct misinformation but to "clean" the page, and are most likely being paid to do so directly or indirectly by Edge Games. If you continue to do so, rather than actually change specific incorrect statements (with proof), you will be blocked from editing. -- Pres N  20:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Correcting false information, a step at a time
Apologies if my prior edit was too drastic. I have thus started a step by step edit that for now just corrects some of the clearly false information in this article. This step I have corrected the fact that Edge Games is actually a brand and corporate name, not a company. I have also given a more fair and balanced opening to the article since the prior version was written solely from the perspective of someone clearly supporting Electronic Arts in the dispute at that time. Wikipedia pages should not be used in a dispute to favour one side over another. This edit gives a more fair balanced perspective that Edge/Langdell disputed what was being alleged and gives a valid supporting cite from that time in question (2011). I have also edited the false statements about the founding of Edge Games and the previously false statement that Edge hadn't published any games for many years (this was a malicious, false rumour spread by Edge's adversaries at the time and is easily seen to be false by inspecting the edgegames website, which is correctly cited in support of the edit). I will wait on further corrections to the remaining falsehoods and errors in this article until I see consensus or approval of these edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertisis (talk • contribs) 14:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your recent edits and most recent changes are controversial enough that I recommend discussing them here (per BRD) before spending your time making widespread changes. You removed claims that were cited and balanced. If you are arguing that they need counterbalance, citations should be added alongside the aforementioned claims and your edits should not appear to be erasing reliable coverage. I recommend reading the COI guidelines and discussing your proposed and controversial edits here before moving forward. About the edgegames website: Eurogamer with its editorial staff is a more reliable source than something self-published (our job is to present the sources neutrally, not to interpret and find the truth and so on). czar ♔  15:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Czar and to X201 who is to be commended for making some of the first changes to this article in some years that at least move it slightly toward a more balanced, neutral viewpoint. X201 has encouraged discussion of changes and I hope we can start that discussion here. I have just made two very slight changes that I trust are acceptable: The way this article has started for some years now is that Edge is known for the litigious practices of its CEO. However, in so far as Edge or Langdell are known for this the ironic fact is that it is this Wikipedia article that has been the main source of people 'knowing' this (or thinking they know it). No one has ever shown that Edge/Langdell is "litigious" and Wikipedia articles should not be used to make accusations or even support them. For now I have added the word "alleged" in front of litigious, to at least get some degree of neutrality. With out this word it reads as an accusation or as a statement of known fact, neither of which is acceptable since articles should not accuse and it is most certainly not a known fact. I have also changed the "many" to "some" in the next statement regarding the EA settlement since reading the articles and documents it is clear that Edge only surrendered a few of its worldwide registrations. Thus the word "many" was inaccurate, and certainly not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertisis (talk • contribs) 18:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This was the first hit in a Google search for "edge" and "litigious": . We also actually avoid the word "alleged" for neutrality reasons (see WP:ALLEGED). I think that many vs. some can be rephrased without either word. Please read the edit summaries in the page history in the future and propose future edits here first for consensus—should save us the constant reverting. czar ♔  18:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Czar. But what is your point? This article by Escapist does not show proof or even evidence that Edge/Langdell was found to be litigious or that Edge/Langdell is "known" to be litigious. If alleged is frowned upon, then I propose removing the word "litigious" since reading all the articles referenced in this entire entry there is no evidence that that word is applicable or appropriate as there is no history of litigation that could make the use of that word appropriate. Perhaps new wording that uses a phrase like questionable trademark practices? As to the many vs some issue, what do you suggest? Removing both words would suggest leaving it as surrendered registrations, which would imply surrendered all of them. Which is even less accurate than the wording already there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertisis (talk • contribs) 18:16, 8 June 2014‎ (UTC)
 * Please sign your posts with four tildes: . My point is that the connection between Edge and litigiousness has to be stark as the first Google hit. There are a few dozen more in a WP:VG/RS custom Google search. It would be fine to quote sources as describing Edge's position as "litigious" especially given the laundry list of sources doing so. As for the many vs. some—recast the whole sentence, but propose the phrasing here. Given your previous edits, I'm going to be hesitant about your edits as whitewashing the actual coverage of the company. Myself, I have little interest in this area and intend to only edit where policies are broken unless you want to involve me further czar  ♔  18:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Many
I suggest changing the "many" line to '' but eventually settled, with the court ordering the cancellation of Edge's trademarks relating to the word 'edge'. '' - X201 (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you X201, however that change would amend the current wording that falsely suggests many of Edge's marks were surrendered to wording that suggests all of Edge's marks were cancelled. Neither is true: only some of Edge's US marks were cancelled by the settlement with EA, leaving the majority of Edge's marks in place. I still believe the word "some" is accurate, and am struggling to see why it is not acceptable (or what the neutral, fair alternative would be). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertisis (talk • contribs) 17:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Which "Edge" trademarks were left after "Trademarks for the phrases "Cutting Edge," Gamer's Edge,"The Edge" and simply "Edge" were cancelled as of April 17, 2013", to make it only "some" of "the trademarks relating to the word 'edge'"? Also- sign your comments with 4 tildes ( ~ ) -- Pres N  17:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Judging by the USPTO records, the company name 'Edge Games', although that cancellation appears to be under a suspension order due to the legal case with Razer. Not a legal expert so I could be wrong. - X201 (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you X201, however I think the confusion is coming from the false statement at the start of this article that Edge Games is a US corporation called "Edge Games Inc" that was founded in 1990. That isn't true ("Edge Games Inc" was founded in 2008, Edge Interactive Media was founded in 1990). I tried to check all of Edge Games' trademarks at the time of the settlement with EA, not just those in the US of Edge Games Inc, and found 26 registrations. So the word "many" is clearly wrong. I also found that the trademark registrations surrendered as part of the settlement with EA were the ones that Edge owned jointly as co-owners with Future Publishing  . So the most accurate statement -- the most neutral, which we are asked to use -- would be:  ...but eventually settled, with the court ordering the cancellation of all the trademarks relating to the word 'edge' that were co-owned by Edge and Future Publishing  . . I thus propose that wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertisis (talk • contribs) 13:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm against this edit since it is original research, which is not how Wikipedia operates. We rely on what the reliable sources say, not the truth. I'm also not interested in entertaining new phrasing until we're able to put the question of conflict of interest to rest—your suggested edits appear to advance an agenda. czar ♔  22:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I see your point Czar. In which case the comments made by X201 and PresN are also original reseach, too, of course. Looking at the cite in the article it does not support the use of the word "many" so the existing wording is thus either original research or just simply false information. Since we cannot determine what percentage of Edge's marks were surrendered as a result of the EA settlement, I propose we replace "most" with "a number of" which agrees factually with the cited document. Vertisis (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

"Litigious"?
Thank you Czar. However, the word "litigious" has a specific meaning that given our mandate to be neutral is inappropriate for us to use here unless we clarify its use has been inaccurate. Litigious means "too ready or eager to sue someone or something in a court of law - tending or likely to engage in lawsuits" (Merriam Webster Dictionary ). That is, for the word litigious to be accurately and properly (neutrally) used it must relate to a person or company with a record of actually suing someone in a court of law, and actually filing lawsuits against others. For example, to just threaten to sue people or to threaten people referring to the law is not being "litigious" -- it is being perhaps "aggressive" or annoying, etc. But not "litigious." So we have some sources referring to Edge as being litigious by using the word wrongly in a more colloquial sense of being aggressive on a legal issue, and we have other sources pointing out that Edge has not been suing people so it has not been actually litigious. There seem to be two neutral solutions -- and we are mandated to come up with neutral solutions -- first to omit the word "litigious" since it has only been used inaccurately in sources, or second to state the balanced view that there are sources that refer to the practices as "litigious" and others that report Langdell as saying Edge has only ever sued two entities in 25 years, and is thus not litigious. I propose wording based on the latter given Czar's points: '' ... known for the the practices of its chief executive and founder, Tim Langdell, in enforcing their trademarks relating to the word "edge", which sources have described as litigious[1][2]. Langdell has refuted these practices citing that Edge has only sued two companies since the late 1980s.[3] '' Hopefully this is acceptable and I will amend the article accordingly unless there is some reasonable basis given for not doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vertisis (talk • contribs) 13:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What are references 1, 2 and 3 going to be? - X201 (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies X201, it was a copy/paste of the existing text. So references 1,2,3 are the existing references currently in the article. They support this revised wording.Vertisis (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If almost all sources are calling his/their actions "litigious", we quote them as saying so. I disagree with your linguistic analysis of what the word means based on my NOAD definition, and I disagree that you or I or anyone else can more aptly describe that behavior better than reliable secondary sources. At a glance, I'm okay with your proposed edit (though you should wait for consensus, especially given your previous behavior) barring that "their trademarks" → "trademarks", and that "litigious" is put in quotes. czar ♔  14:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You also have been asked to sign your posts with four tildes multiple times, and asked about a conflict of interest multiple times, including on your talk page. czar  ♔  14:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Czar. I checked NOAD and the definition there seems pretty similar: "concerned with lawsuits - unreasonably prone to go to law to settle disputes." I'm pleased you find the proposed wording acceptable and I agree with the use of quote marks. I am a neutral party. Vertisis (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you are concerned with technicalities—I didn't ask whether you were neutral, but whether you have an affiliation with the topic. As for the NOAD definition, the primary definition was before the hyphen in your quote. czar ♔   12:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * By neutral I meant not affiliated with the topic. I agree that being pedantic over definitions of words is perhaps not productive. Although just to note that in NOAD it is giving a general definition followed by an example to clarify what is meant. Thus clarifying here that by being concerned with lawsuits NOAD means unusually prone to go to law to settle disputes rather than, say, someone who is concerned with lawsuits by studying them being called litigious. Regardless, this new more balanced wording that gives both sides and lets the reader make up their own mind is more neutral than the existing wording. Vertisis (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There appears to be agreement to the proposed changes and no opposition to them, so if by tomorrow there is still no comment to the contrary in talk, I'll make the changes. Vertisis (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Edgegamers
I propose the deletion of the following text about Edgegamers '' In 2011 & 2012, Langdell entered into a legal dispute over naming rights with EdgeGamers Organization, an online gaming community. EdgeGamers Organization won, and currently own trademarking rights for EdgeGamers.[51] '' I see above in Talk that user 'Coolgamer' asked if he could amend the page to include an alleged dispute with Edgegamers and he was told by 'GDaillmore' not to add such new text unless there is a solid source supporting it. Apparently despite the warning not to do so, the text about Edgegamers was added without adequate supporting source cited. The cited source (51) does not say anything about a legal dispute, or Edgegamers winning, taking over ownership of the mark, or etc. In fact the source relates to something that happened in 2010, not in 2011/12. There is no evidence in any of the sources cited in this article that there was any dispute between Edge and Edgegamers in 2011/12. And there is no evidence of a legal dispute that Edgegamers is supposed to have won, or that Edgegamers now owns the 'trademarking' (sic) rights for EdgeGamers. This seems to be a fabricated entry with no supporting evidence. I thus propose deleting it, and shall do so unless there is reasonable objection to doing so. Vertisis (talk) 13:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed this paragraph for failing verification in its primary source and not having any corroboration in reliable sources (Google or WP:VG/RS). I added a better secondary source for the other EdgeGamers mention. BRD if necessary czar ♔   14:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

IGDA
The heading of this section is obviously wrong. Langdell was not removed from the IGDA Board, he resigned from it. While this section needs editing to give a more neutral view of the issue, for now I propose at least correcting the heading to 'Resignation from IGDA Board'. I propose that I correct this unless there is reasonable objection to my doing so. Vertisis (talk) 13:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source for his resignation. - X201 (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC) Posted here in error. - X201 (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A cursory WP:VG/RS search shows that he indeed did resign, but it was at the cusp of being pushed out. What's more is that the IGDA Board of Directors proceeded to then revoke his membership. Still, a more suitable title is in order (from the current "Removal from IGDA Board"). I'm not quite sure why this needs to be its own section anyway. This lies in the gray area in what is about Edge Games and what is about Langdell—it's possible that either he or the trademark concerns could spin out into their own article (since there is undue weight on whatever else the company had done in the past) at this point czar ♔   14:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Czar. I now see that the links in the article purporting to relate to Langdell resigning are incorrect and are dead links to internal pages on the IGDA website rather than to the actual sources referenced. Those links can be fixed (I'll aim to do it). As to what you said, my cursory WP:VG/RS revealed that there is no evidence that his resignation was at the cusp of being pushed out. The Langdell's own statement at the time as well as other sources all point to there being no chance he could have been voted off the IGDA Board since a quorum of at least 50% of the 16,000+ membership would have been required to be present in person. Something that was never remotely likely. Langdell said he resigned to remove the undue pressure from the IGDA staff caused by a vocal minority, and from what I read there is nothing to suggest that isn't exactly what happened. His resignation was in August 2009 and the Board vote to remove him as a member was not until 14 months later in October 2010, so I cannot agree with your depiction of the Board then proceeding to revoke his membership as if it followed shortly on the back of his resignation from the Board. Sources reported that Langdell said that the Board was influenced by a member of EA on it lobbying to revoke his membership and that the Board misunderstood the October 2010 court ruling as if it had ruled that Langdell had acted unethically, whereas in fact the court ruling did not rule that. It was a common misreading of the court's ruling (all this needs to be part of cleaning up the section above that misreports these events). So this section really needs an addition to give Langdell's side of the membership cancellation, too. I'll work on drafting that with sources. But you make a good point, I don't see why this topic should have its own separate section. I propose we remove this section heading altogether. As to splitting off either the trademark issues or parts about Langdell as an individual, I share your concern. But I am not sure the solution is to split off parts of this article into a new article. It might be to edit this article back down to be about the company, Edge Games, rather than about Langdell. Right now this article puts almost the entire emphasis on brief events that happened in 2009/2010, events that were highly contentious with contemporaneous recorded contention as to whether certain events even happened. In its current form it gives undue weight to this brief period in 2009/10, not giving weight to what else the company did since the early 1980s, or since 2010. I see that neither the Electronic Arts nor Future Publishing Wiki articles have any mention of these events, despite those companies being as involved as Edge Games/Langdell. It seems unbalanced to have such a large portion of the article devoted to a topic that does not rise to the level of being apparently worth being added to the EA or Future Wiki articles. Despite being cleaned up and greatly improved since the highly objectionable versions of this article of 2009/10 at the height of the attack on Langdell, the article still reads like Wikipedia is being used to conduct a character assassination of Langdell. Vertisis (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * there is no evidence that his resignation was at the cusp of being pushed out The very first hit: "Late last week, the IGDA announced that a special meeting of the membership - essentially an online vote - would be held Oct. 3, the sole purpose of which was to vote on whether Langdell should be removed." It is one of the most fitting examples of anyone being pushed out of anything. As for your wall of text, the solution to having a lot of coverage isn't throwing it out put making sure it's given due weight and otherwise split out to another article if notable enough. And your unilateral urgency to reduce the influence of Langdell in this article (whose legal actions are, by any measure, what the company is known for) makes me hesitant to support further action right now. czar ♔   21:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was the article I think I was quoting from. It makes clear that although a vote was set for October 3, there was no real likelihood the necessary quorum could be reached. According to Langdell, and other sources of that same time period, this is why he resigned. I think it's a valid point that there was no real possibility of him be removed from the Board, but he resigned rather than cause any further stress to the IGDA staff and other Board members. So, should we just correct the section heading or should we just make this text flow from the text above, taking it out of its own section? Also, I'm sorry if you saw it as my unilateral urgency to reduce the influence of Langdell in this article - did I misunderstand? I thought that was what you were suggesting and I was just agreeing with you. Vertisis (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't do original research here—analysis is for secondary sources to do. I removed the header though, as agreed czar ♔   01:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have repaired the incorrect Kotaku source, as well as added the correct archive urls for the two deadlinks. -- ferret (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Its pretty clear that when the IDGA says that they're going to hold a meeting for no other purpose than to vote to kick out Langdell, and Langdell resigns right before the meeting is be held, that he "resigned on the cusp of being pushed out". I mean, come on. We're all pretending that you're not being paid by Edge or at the very least incredibly partisan towards a company that nobody generally cares about, and I'm willing to put up with it as long as you toe the line and work towards improving the article, which could definitely use the work, but don't act like we're idiots. Langdell was pushed out, even though technically the voting was not formally determined. -- Pres N  04:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "On the cusp" is valid as all the sources are interpreting as a "jump before he was pushed" action. Only people with knowledge of the voting procedure can comment on the likelihood of the removal vote succeeding. As yet I haven't found a source quoting the procedure that states it would have failed. You've mentioned before that you are not affiliated to Edge Games, as you can see from PresN's and Czars' comments, editors are having trouble believing that, but, provided that alterations are discussed before being made, it looks like things will be able to proceed as they have with previous edits. - X201 (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I say again, I do not work for Edge nor am I paid by Edge. I am of the opinion that what happened to this article 5 years ago shouldn't have been allowed to happen. The good, balanced article on the 30-year history of one of the earliest game companies was destroyed and replaced with very biased, partisan, inaccurate statements and no one within Wikipedia stopped what happened. Not at the time or since has anyone asked anyone posting negative statements about Edge/Langdell to get consensus in Talk first, instead clearly false and biased information (clearly put there by enemies of Edge) has been permitted to remain. Call me crazy for caring that this article stands out from almost all other game industry articles as being full or errors and biases, and for wanting to see the errors and biases corrected. I'm not a particular fan of Edge Games or Langdell, but I do want to see this article amended to reflect a fair consideration of the veteran company and a true and balance account of events that we may collectively believe should be included. As to your suggestion (X201) that I have some kind of inside knowledge of the voting that shows I am involved with Edge, all I did was quote from the existing source (55) in which Langdell himself is quoted as saying he only resigned because of the problems being caused within the IGDA, not because he was in any sense being forced out. You say "all the sources are interpreting as a "jump before he was pushed" action" -- well that isn't true. Even a quick review of the available sources shows there were far more that suggested his resignation was because if he hadn't resigned then prolonged issues would have arisen due to there being no chance the vote could have succeeded. Czar says we don't do original research here: I have trouble with that since original research (extremely biased research) was done to create this article and research is needed to correct the errors in it and make it more neutral and balanced. On this issue it is really quick and easy to see from reliable sources that in August 2009 the petition to vote Langdell off the Board had been running for about 2 months and gathered only about 200 of the 2000 minimum votes required to even have a formal vote take place. Then in late August someone hacked the IGDA database stealing the member IDs (needed to vote on the petition) and sent an unauthorized email to IGDA members calling for them to vote on the petition ( and ). Less than 24 hours later the source states the Board received a message from the people running the petition that they now have over 2,000 votes, up from around 200 the day before, and called for the Board to authorize the official vote on Langdell. The Board (see email sent by Board Co-Chair Tobi Saulnier ) respond refusing to accept the petition as valid, noting the hacking lead to the alleged miraculous appearance of 2000 votes. Instead, they use their power as Board members to call for a vote on Langdell rather than get into a dispute over the validity of the so-called member petition. I won't cite the further sources, since as Blogs they may not be reliable, but in other sources there are quotes from IGDA Board members and the IGDA Secretary stating that they had never had as many as 2000 IGDA members vote in any elections despite several months of begging members to vote, so they believe the 2000 votes on the petition were faked using the membership data gathered from the hack of the IGDA system. There are other blog posts where IGDA members discuss that the quorum for a vote on Langdell would be 50% of the over 16,000 members, which could never happen because an estimated 10,000 of the 16,000 members are not 'real' in the sense that for instance EA alone had a block membership of every employee worldwide (over 6,000 members?), most of which employees probably didnt even know they were members. There was thus a huge amount of evidence and reporting in reliable sources that Langdell certainly did not jump before he was pushed. It is far more probable (based on his announcement and the official email by Saulnier) that he did resign to save the IGDA a lot of internal troubles. If the IGDA section is doing to remain in, then I still feel it needs to be amended to reflect these other reliable sources and a more neutral account of what took place. Vertisis (talk) 18:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Two things: (1) "these other reliable sources": which? tigsource? Because forums are not reliable sources. RS are secondary, independent, vetted by journalists, which leads to (2) if what you want to write requires this level of investigative journalism, it isn't suited for Wikipedia. We summarize secondary sources. Everything you wrote above is the epitome of original research. If it's important, let a secondary source write it up and then we can summarize/quote it. czar ♔   18:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I wasn't suggesting reliable sources that would be used in the article would include ones like tigsource. And I wasnt suggesting such original research would be included. Simply that on their face the reliable sources only state that Langdell resigned to avoid further internal stress at the IGDA. And that if anyone is tempted to think that what 'really' happened was that he jumped before he was pushed, then it is quick and easy to do a little research that shows that clearly either isnt true or at the very least is far more complicated than that simple assumption might suggest. That said, of course any new text for the article would need to be supported by reliable sources. That might be a task for a later date. No particular urgency to do that at this time. Vertisis (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've re-read the section and whilst I think that what is in the article at the moment is valid, there does need to be an addition to drag some NPOV into it. I think we should keep what is there, but add Langdell's side of the story, to that end I propose the additions in the section below. - X201 (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change
New text is in italics:

I think this balances it quite well. - X201 (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me (made a change to ellipses in the quote and added a reference at the end of the sentence with the quote). Actually, to be honest, I'm not sure the quote is necessary (could be paraphrased or just removed), but that's less important than addressing the immediate NPOV concerns czar ♔   12:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine by me too, although I think the quote is necessary to give the NPOV we're seeking here. It should remain in. I don't think you're suggesting giving this section its own heading again, but if you are I would suggest it remains as it is without a separate heading. Ideally we would have Langdell's response to his membership being cancelled covered as well, but so far I can only find indications of his response in unreliable sources. I will keep looking. Vertisis (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see Langdell never commented publicly on losing his IGDA membership. To give some degree of NPOV I propose we add to the end of your proposed edit This decision by the IGDA Board came at the point sources were speculating Langdell might have been guilty of wrongdoing, but before the October 20, 2010 court decision that ruled Langdell not to be guilty of any wrongdoing, not to be guilty of trolling the industry or any lack of integrity or dishonesty.[5] (the cite is the one currently in the main article). Vertisis (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Having consensus and not seeing any objection, I made the edit to the main article. I did slightly change what you quote from the source, X201, since your quote was not quite what Langdell was reported as having said in the source. Vertisis (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've partially reverted this edit, since you also used it as an opportunity to insert a lengthy sentence about Langdell's innocence which was not part of this proposed change. -- ferret (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On reconsideration, I fully reverted this, due to a few grammar issues, as well as there was no concensus for this edit at all. I support X201's original proposed edit going forward, but that isn't what was done. -- ferret (talk) 13:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence and input Ferret. So we have two changes I made, let's take them one at a time. First, I corrected the quote from the source that X201 did. He mistakenly quoted Langdell as saying if a quorum was formed and the vote went in his favor then that might not be accepted by the vocal minority. That is not what the source states, though. I thus propose this be corrected to be what the source actually states which is:

Second, you apparently object to what I added to the end of this piece. As I said above, I cannot find any response from Langdell in any reliable source to what the Board did. Thus to give balance to the piece I propose adding the simple fact to put the Board's action in context and thus let the readers of this article make of what happened whatever they want. I thus propose adding (somewhat different from the edit I did):

I believe this is an entirely accurate, factual statement which gives some degree of NPOV to what the Board did. What is your objection? Indeed, what is your objection or constructive criticism to either of my changes? Vertisis (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In regards to the 'quote' edit, you've been asked not to make edits without a consensus on the talk page first. Quite simply, that's what you did here. At a basic level, I don't disagree with what you're trying to change, but the sentence structure is awkward and needs much work. Regardless, you needed to bring it up here first.
 * In regards to the final sentence you added... If we don't have a response from Langdell, we don't have a response from Langdell. Nothing more to it. We can't speculate or tie other events together like that. The IGDA membership issue and the lawsuit are different issues. Because he wasn't guilty of any LEGAL wrong doing does not mean that the board cannot view him as having acted unethical, because as it says, "as determined by the Board of Directors.", not "as determined by the court of law." People are fired or removed from boards and memberships all the time on ethics grounds that have no legal action behind them. -- ferret (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence structure is the same as that used by X201, on which mine was based. How can you justify approving X201's edit and then oppose mine saying it needs "much work." That doesn't make sense. I cant see anything wrong with the sentence as I wrote it. Can you perhaps be constructive and propose alternate wording? As to the other point, I see what you mean and perhaps the readers of this article can put the data together for themselves. But one thing is certain, the Board decision was obviously directly linked to the court case outcome. No one believes that the Board met and made their decision a couple of days after the news first broke by coincidence. But as I say, we'll leave that and let the readers put the dates and events together themselves. As to the reworded X201 quote, my wording seems fine, what do you suggest? Vertisis (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Here's another attempt. Does this satisfy your concerns Ferret?

Vertisis (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On further thought, I'm not very happy with the original wording either. Interjecting the quote as a part of the sentence feels awkward and heavy to me. Here's my proposal:


 * This trims the direct quote to simply "vocal minority" while maintaining the meaning. However, if Czar and X201 prefer the fuller quote and agree with you, I'm will accept with that. -- ferret (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ferret, I see now what you were getting at about the sentence structure. A minor tweek is needed to reflect the actual quote in the source:

Vertisis (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. -- ferret (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We have consensus on this version of what X201 wrote, then. Vertisis (talk) 01:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Change (Legal case(s) detail)
Cites not live links here are number for the existing cite in the article as it stands. Some text was deleted, for instance because the sources cited were expired links or,in the case of the comment about the magazine covers, had no cited source and was not supported by any valid source cited elsewhere.

As this section currently reads it sounds like EA took out a petition only against Edge, that when Edge then sued EA the judge ruled against Langdell ruling he is a troll and had committed fraud, and that the result was the court ordering the cancellation of marks owned solely by Edge. The trouble is, none of this is true and it does not agree with the sources. The following re-write reflects what the sources actually state:

(To make the above easier to read, perhaps one of you could make it in a blue box like X201's proposal above, and take the text out of bold).

In addition to the above I also propose deleting this from the start of the Article since it is a duplication of what is in the section: "In 2010, Edge Games sued Electronic Arts for trademark infringement,[4] but eventually settled, with Edge surrendering many of its registrations.[5]" Where it currently is it makes it seem like this fact defines what Edge Games is, which is not accurate, and if it were to remain it would need modifying with the facts about Future Publishing's co-ownership of the marks, which would start to read like the EA section. Yet without such amendments it is currently misleading and not NPOV. Vertisis (talk) 22:42, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose I do not feel these edits address NPOV. If anything, they swing the article wildly in the opposite direction, with numerous repeated assertions of Langdell's innocence and repeatedly stressing that Edge was pressured by Future in it's actions. The assertions that Edge was pushed by Future into action was sourced to Langdell himself, while other sources make opposing claims on the matter , and should be mentioned as "claimed" or "allegedly." The section does need some cleanup, but this edit wouldn't work. -- ferret (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Ferret, if this rewrite seems to you to swing the article in the opposite direction, then I just draw your attention to the fact the existing text is not supported by the sources cited. The cited sources actually support this new rewrite. I have added "claim" to where there is mention of Future requiring Edge to take action, but it is correct to have this included for NPOV since this fact was reported in a reliable source, properly cited. It may be a revelation to some people to realize that EA were taking action against Future and Edge, and that Edge claim Future were telling them what to do, but this is all as reported in the reliable sources and is true per the primary (e.g. USPTO) and secondary sources.


 * I can't read this until every direct quote (with quotation marks) has an immediate citation (right after their sentences) and until no paragraph is left uncited. Also, if you're rewriting it anyway, you should remove the primary source documents since they are not vetted (or see "self-published sources" for how we use them). czar ♔   23:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added cites after every quote that I added to the original text. I have not put cites in where the original text has quotes without cites since I could not see the quotes as supported by any cite. Yet I also didn't think I could remove those quotes since I might be criticized for removing negative comments in the current text. I think your criticism, then, may be against the existing text which has quotes with no cites. If so, then would you condone them just being deleted? Vertisis (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also And then sourced to a primary document? This rewrite was supposed to be NPOV? We use the secondary reporting, not Langdell's own reporting. Why? Because of examples just like this czar  ♔   23:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. The Langdell reference is not to a primary source -- it is there in the current text and is drawn from the secondary source cited at the end of the paragraphs. So when it says "Langdell pointed out ...etc" that is from the secondary source. Do you mean that should be made clear? Also, I don't understand your point about primary sources. This article is full of primary sources such as documents on the USPTO website and the court case document sources. Here the cite is to a primary source at the USPTO. Do you really mean all primary sources should be deleted? If so, that would be a very different rewrite, but one I am happy to try to do. Vertisis (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See my earlier comment about "investigative journalism" due to the amount of original reporting necessary to substantiate your blow-by-blow account of a POV not reflected in the sources. The article should not be using those USPTO sources unless they meet the use case for primary sources, yes. That doesn't mean the text needs to be deleted—it just needs to be sourced properly. If it cannot be sourced properly, then it gets deleted. Every place that has quotation marks needs a ref to immediately follow it. If at any point in any paragraph it is not obvious whence a section is sourced, it also needs a citation—classic case of this are the paragraphs above that end without any ref at all. czar ♔   01:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, points taken. I'll look to adding cites at the end of each paragraph. The POV is reflected in the sources, though. Its the POV in the existing text that isn't reflected in the sources currently cited. As to the existing quotes that have no sources in the text as it currently stands, I'm not sure what you are asking. I've already said I can't see any way to support them. So I think you're saying they get deleted? I'll wait for further clarification on that, though. Vertisis (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The quotes can be sourced to the primary source, I believe (Czar?), since there is no analysis involved in the quote itself. Any commentary about the meaning of the quote, etc, must come from the secondary. (Czar?) You can find both existing quotes at this source, which has the text of the order: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2010cv02614/228647/67 -- ferret (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's right (though I'd question why the quotes are necessary in the first place if there is suitable secondary commentary to cite instead) czar ♔   02:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've ensured every quote now has a citation, as well as the end of every paragraph. I have also double checked that this is all just restatement of what is in the secondary and primary sources with no commentary about the meaning. I have also checked that primary sources have only been used appropriately (nearly all of them are the ones in the article as it currently stands). This now reflects a balanced NPOV version, compared to the current version which is inaccurate, is not supported by the sources it cites, and was written from a biased POV. This rewrite involved no research, just reading the citations in the existing text and brief consideration of two primary sources linked to or referred to in the existing source cites.Vertisis (talk) 13:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree Since Vertis has made the changes to the above proposed new text it is now I am thinking more NPOV. The existing text is being too biased and this new edit now works in my opinion. I agree to this amendment. Gamaseft (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC) — Gamaseft (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Just a note to say there's a lot of this to work through. I think we need a bigger boat. - X201 (talk) 08:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

registrations co-owned by Edge Games and Future Publishing
Re:"registrations co-owned by Edge Games and Future Publishing" The ref supplied for this doesn't support the claim. The supplied ref lists the defendants in the request to prevent cancellation of the trademark, not the list of owners. The trademark was not jointly owned by Edge and Future, the USPTO lists Edge as the sole owner with no mention of Future at all. The supplied reference has Future listed in it because Future had launched their own appeal requesting that the Edge trademark be transferred solely into their name. The statement claiming Future were co-owners is wrong. Its the reason why EA launched their case against Edge on its own. If Future were co-owners then the EA case would need to have been brought against both Edge and Future. It wasn't. - X201 (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not true
 * That isn't right X201. You cannot be a defendant in a trademark cancellation proceeding unless you are an owner or a co-owner. Check the assignment section of the registration and you'll see that the registration was partially assigned to Future Publishing so they became co-owners. See the citation in my re-write above (toward the bottom - cite [11]) -- you'll see that Future themselves wrote to the USPTO reminding the Trademark Office that they co-own the trademark and that thus they should have been named in the EA case for it to be valid. So my re-write is 100% accurate. Vertisis (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Changes made without consensus
X201 I see you have added references in the EA section after the false statement about the magazine covers. This text refers to the 2010 case with EA, but two of your citations are from 2011 and relate to the Future dispute. They are thus not relevant. Further, two of the three citations you added do not mention the magazine cover issue at all, and the third mentions it only by reference to the ChaosEdge Blog that is not a reliable source. Thus even though it is a secondary source, it is quoting an unreliable source and should not be used in this article. I thus propose the removal of these three citations you just added. Vertisis (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You make a good point about the magazine covers being raised in the Future case, that is obviously a point that should be added to that section of the article because it was part of Future's argument.
 * As regards the references in the EA section I'll run through each of them.


 * 1) Rock, Paper, Shotgun - I added this because it has an image of the covers that EA was disputing. The two magazine covers side by side allows readers to actually see EA's claim. I've found the actual covers in the USPTO system so we could ref to that instead to avoid causing confusion with the RPS coverage of the Future case.
 * 2) Games Industry International - I'm unsure if you're objecting to this one. This is covering the US case and it covers the magazines in the following "A further case followed, regarding Langdell's apparently falsified evidence when applying for his various edge-related trademarks. The former IGDA board member had submitted doctored Edge magazine covers, comic books and game box art to support his claimed rights to the common-language word. EA had presented the fake images as part of its counter-claim against Langdell."
 * 3) The Escapist - This one is referencing the UK case. I'll remove it from the EA case. - X201 (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Games Industry International - I think you were concentrating on the 3 refs in the middle of the paragraph, this ref at the end also addresses the magazine covers. "So when, for example, Langdell put forward a cover from Edge magazine in 2004 and said it was his, no-one there in the US decided to look at what the actual Edge magazine cover in 2004 had been. But when EA put evidence of that forward, it was quite clear that it had been doctored."
 * I added the refs because, as you correctly pointed out in the other section, that this paragraph in the article was unreferenced, as that will directly influence the call to remove the paragraph I checked to see if references could be found to support it. If I hadn't found any references I would have stated so in response to your part above, supporting your request to remove that section. There was unreferenced text in the article, so I added a reference. It's normal Wikipedia procedure. - X201 (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks X201, but we have a fundamental problem here and I would appreciate guidance as to how to resolve it to get a true NPOV. It is true that BEFORE the court rendered its final decision in the EA case in Oct 2010 there was speculation by EA and even the judge himself that Edge might have doctored a magazine cover. It was also being speculated on that Langdell himself might be exposed to criminal charges. However, we know from the sources that the final outcome, that is the final court ruling, was that Langdell was found to be no guilty of any wrongdoing. That is, he was not found guilty of fraud, or of doctoring any magazine covers, or of doing anything that could possibly have given rise to the idea of (let alone fact of) criminal charges. As the article currently reads it sounds like the original writer of this part (with your help of these latest cites) is building a case for Langdell being actually guilty of wrongdoing when we all know that the end result was that he was not found guilty of any wrongdoing. So how do we present this with a proper NPOV? I cannot see the justification for this entire part still being in the article given the outcome of the court decision. But if it is to remain then it needs a clear statement added that the court found that Langdell did not doctor any magazine covers, was not guilty of wrongdoing, was thus not in the remotest danger of facing criminal charges. Yet to put all that in is to suggest there is still some debate as to whether Langdell was 'guilty' or not, and there is no debate since the court decision was no wrongdoing. And what a verdict of no wrongdoing means is that anything he was suspected of before is to be understood to have been not found to be true. By definition. It thus seems questionable to even include these issues in the article. Vertisis (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We can fix it easily. It actually reminds me of the Andy Murray "anyone but England" quote. That quote is a widely know quote in the UK, it is also erroneous in what people think they know about it. Wikipedia does its job as an encyclopaedia by having that quote in it, it also explains the misreporting and clarifies the context of what really happened. In the case of the Edge covers we can do the same, rather than remove the paragraph and perpetuate the myth, we simply add something like "a clause in the final judgement cancelled out these accusations stating there was no wrong doing by any party" That way, readers can find the thing they think is fact, and then realise they were wrong. - X201 (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That get's my vote. So can we agree the wording I did above (in blue box under Proposed Change (Legal case(s) detail)), with the amendments I made in response to comments, and incorporate it with this text modified in the way you suggest? Replacing the RockPaperShotgun cite with the USPTO one you found, as I said above.Vertisis (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've moved your additional comment from above ("Yes, let's replace the RockPaperShotgun cite with the USPTO one you found so we don't confuse this with the Future matter.") As it was in the middle of my message and broke the numbering system. - X201 (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to remind ourselves that we had agreed to change one cite. I think we agreed that the RockPaperShotgun cite was to be replaced with the USPTO one you found. Or, given there are already two cites to support this point, why not just delete the cite that confusingly relates to the Future dispute, not this EA dispute? Vertisis (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Back to the original proposal

 * I'm opposed to this draft until the primary sources are replaced with reliable secondary sources or otherwise justified. czar ♔   15:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to spend the weekend pondering whether to start an RFC, I think we need help from extra eyes and hopefully someone legally trained from WP:LAW, to help pick though the details and point things out to us. I'm opposed until we've gone through the proposed change step by step and everyone is happy with the result and the refs. - X201 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Concur with both Czar and X201. -- ferret (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree since I believe I already justified the need to cite primary sources in the absence of reliable secondary sources. But for now I propose that I do a new draft that draws only on secondary sources for the time being. We can then add primary sources later as we get consensus that they are needed for NPOV and balance. That said, I trust that you are not going to impose one rule for me and another rule for the person who wrote the existing text in this section? That is, that as Czar said above, you will accept that in the rewrite I will remove all text from the original that is either not supported by any citation or is supported only by a primary source (such as the court record or the USPTO record). It would be unfair to not permit me to use the court and USPTO sources, but permit the existing text to remain as it is using the exact same kind of sources. Clearly the current text needs correction and NPOV since as it stands it is full of errors and false statements and is not supported by the secondary sources that it cites.The text should at least have this amount of NPOV work done on it while we wait to see if we can set up an RFC, and wait for clarity from that process. It shouldn't remain as it currently is, since that is clearly wrong. I'll put a new proposed draft up shortly. Vertisis (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's right, yes. But know that if such a draft were to just exclude those claims (instead of trying to substantiate them) out of hand and swing out of balance in the other direction, it would be a waste of all of our time czar ♔   20:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. The goal will be to add balance and NPOV, not to exclude claims to throw the balance the other way. I'll see what I can do, but I think the fundamental problem here is that it is impossible to get a fair NPOV view of this issue without citing primary sources since the secondary sources didn't do balanced coverage. It was made worse by EA taking action against both Edge and Future but seeming to do all in its power when talking with the press to make it sound like they were only taking action against Edge/Langdell. Vertisis (talk) 21:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Revised Proposed Changes to Legal Case Detail
New text in italics, deleted text is struck through.

Notes:
 * The first cite, [4], is not for the trademark cancellation but for the law suit Edge brought against EA. So I replaced it with the actual cite for the Petition to Cancel which names Future and Edge as joint defendants.
 * The next sections struck out are because the first part reads like a legal argument being made by EA in a court (not appropriate for a Wikipedia article), and the second part is supposed to be supported by cites [2] and [24]. However those cites are dead links. I've searched for secondary articles to support this statement by EA and cannot find one in any reliable source.
 * I then added in some direct quotes from the Escapist article that gives a more balanced NPOV of Langdell’s side of events as well as EA’s position (which is already well represented).
 * I've moved the last quote from Judge Alsup about non-use of the marks higher up since it broke the flow to have it further down where it currently is. I then added direct quotes from the exact same source giving NPOV that the judge qualified his speculations by saying the jury might come to a different conclusion.
 * I then modified the magazine cover part since what it states there currently (about Edge being alleged to have doctored Future Publishing's Edge magazine cover) is not stated anywhere in the source. All that is stated is that Edge submitted a US market catalog cover that was pointed out to be different from Future's UK magazine cover for the same month. (I personally never understood what point EA were trying to make, since of course Edge's US catalog cover would not look like Future's UK magazine cover).
 * I then added clarification of what Langdell was not found guilty of in order to draw the NPOV balance of this part of the article together.
 * Finally, I struck out the section starting "October 7, 2010" since it simply repeats what has already been stated above except goes back in time to when the court's final order was still being speculated about. That seems irrelevant since the article already reports what the final order did state, so I see no value in reporting what some people were speculating it might state.

I believe this revised version, based only on secondary sources, and not adding any new sources, is far more accurate, balanced and NPOV than the current text which is very biased in EA's favor. Vertisis (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments Links 2 and 24 should be restored and their sections restored. I will find the appropriate archive links momentarily. The final paragraph, starting at Oct 2010, should not be struck out, but rewritten. While some of the content here is repeated above, most of it is not, such as listing the particular trademarks and discussing the final end of the lawsuit in a settlement. The strike out would also remove several sources. -- ferret (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've fixed link 24. I could not find an archive for link 2 (NASDAQ), but found a mirror of it. -- ferret (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I have put back in the wording as you suggest, with an edit to the paragraph starting at Oct 2010. As to the cites that you put back in, are we sure this is acceptable or correct? In both cases it seems the original article was deleted by the reporting entity. That might be because they changed their mind about the article's accuracy or even that they had a court order to remove it. In such circumstances should the archive copy of such an article be linked to? And in the other case, is a Greek version of what may or may not be an accurate mirror a secondary source we can consider reliable? Vertisis (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Linkrot is common as the internet changes and evolves. In many cases 404s are simply due to the URL structure of the site changing. Either way, it's perfectly acceptable to replace deadlinks with archive links and mirrors. As for the previous NASDAQ link, the content itself was not from NASDAQ, simply hosted there, it was a Dow Jones Newsfeed wire. Feel free to see if you can find a better mirror, this is the whole point of citation templates. The more information you have on the original article, the easier it is to restore deadlinks. -- ferret (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. Still not sure what the policy is when an original article has been taken down by arrangement or by a court order. Whether we always repair apparent broken links regardless of why they are broken? That said, with all the changes you asked for now being made, are we in agreement then on this new edit, which is more accurate, balanced and NPOV than the existing text? Vertisis (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm withholding further comment until I see how other editors take the changes, based both on your original and the changes made due to my remarks. -- ferret (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Since we have no further objection or constructive criticism of this new edit, it looks like it has adequate consensus to update. The existing text is highly inaccurate and biased, and at least this new edit meets all the criticism that Czar and X201 had of my first edit, and this edit does rely solely on the existing secondary sources, just more accurately reflecting them. We can then use this new edit as a basis to modify going forward as being a more neutral NPOV status quo than the existing text. Vertisis (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Opposed, more to follow. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's still quite a few issues. For example, you've inserted this text:


 * However, the October 10th ruling doesn't make any mention of "in which he personally would not make the final decision", nor does it make any declaration about "Having only heard EA's side". The only part of this sentence that is supportable by the source is that Alsup said a "jury may ultimately find otherwise". Next...


 * The source clearly shows this is a misrepresentation. The magazine cover shown featuring a cover article about the Sony PSP, the same as Future's. It clearly is not a representation of a product catalog, and presents itself as a monthly publication.
 * Honestly, I can't bother to go on. nearly everything in these edits is a whitewash of Langdell, with unnecessary repeated assertions of his innocence and misrepresentations of the court filing and other sources. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Czar has summed up my opinions. - X201 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Likewise. NPOV means giving due weight to the way the voices are expressed in the sources. This edit's POV-pushing is so stark that I don't even know where to start. Additionally, I can't verify any of the sources because they're numbers and not links. czar ♔   13:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In the opening of his opinion Judge Alsup states he only heard EA's side of the argument about alleged fraud. He also states that at trial the jury might come to a different conclusion. From which we can obviously conclude it is set for a jury trial and the judge himself would not be making any decisions. That all follows from the source cited. But I will edit it down to just state that the judge clarified the jury might reach a different conclusion since that appears to satisfy you. As to the magazine cover, I can only say I am puzzled by this. There is nothing in the source that shows Edge Games suggested the image they submitted to the USPTO was of Future's magazine. And just giving that a very little thought shows that can't possibly have been the case. We know from the sources that Future was at that time using the mark EDGE under license from Edge Games, so if Edge needed to prove use of the mark EDGE on a magazine all they had to do was file the actual Future magazine cover. The fact they filed a cover they claimed was of their own product appears to show that whatever it is -- a US magazine or a product catalog featuring Edge's thoughts on the PSP, anticipated games for the PSP, whatever -- it is almost certainly genuine since Edge had no reason to 'fake' anything as they could just file the Future cover as an alternative. It's true that EA alleged it was an attempt at a fake cover, but we never did hear Edge's side of the story. So perhaps the wording gets changed to reflect this? I'll re-edit it from that perspective. The existing text is grossly POV, and reads like it was written by an employee of EA. So clearly we need to get some neutrality, balance and NPOV in this. I'll make the latest changes you suggest and hopefully we can agree on that as an edit to approve. If not, then I hope further constructive criticism can be presented so we can arrive at a fair new edit to replace the inaccurate text currently there.Vertisis (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Revised proposed edit
Czar, please note the cite numbers are those in the existing text except where they are live links where they are new cites that are auto-numbered by Talk. As you can see, this edit relies almost entirely on the existing cites in the article as it stands, but more fairly and correctly quoted from.

I believe the above edit now addresses all the objections that were raised. I have also removed the repetition of Langdell's ultimately not being found guilty of any wrongdoing since on rereading it was being repeated too often. Vertisis (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "speculate" is a word to avoid—used three times. As for checking the numbers, this is not a draft for posterity as ref numbers change constantly. The best way is to include the actual citations with an instance of reflist and yes so I can actually read through your draft and refer back to it in the future without the numbers changing. Also there is just so much couched language and needless tit-for-tat minutiae in this draft that the writing doesn't seem encyclopedic on first read. It should read less as a list of events and more as an overview. czar ♔   02:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Czar. I'll redraft according to your guidelines. Just to note that in at least one case the source specifically states he is speculating. So the use is perhaps appropriate here, so long as it is clear that the source is being quoted. As to the other two instances, I will research the best alternative according to guidelines as to words to use. I will also put the citations in a reflist as you suggest, and make the wording more of a summary than a blow-by-blow. Vertisis (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. Thanks for your patience. I'd add that if the source talks about someone speculating, that may not be a very reliable part to mention at all. czar ♔   05:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The part that is from a source that specifically states it is pure speculation is the part that cites Langdell could be exposed to criminal charges. That is a very serious allegation that was only speculated on yet for the past 4 years has been presented as if it is a 'fact' here in this article. Do I take it from your response that I would be approved to delete that reference? For now I will just add in that the source stated it as speculation since I don't want to be accused of removing it without clear consensus.
 * Where did the info about the Edge magazine submission being a product catalogue come from? The above spends far too much of its time stating how Langdell has done no wrong, to the point that there are things being disproved/denied that haven't actually been mentioned in the article. There are NPOV terms in it too such as "what it had styled" which is a loaded phrase. It should be "what it described as" is neutral. The first paragraph is 33% about EA launching the action (with no criticism of Edge/Langdell mentioned). The remaining 66% of that paragraph is a defence of Edge/Langdell even stating it/he wasn't guilty of fraud, a claim that hasn't even bee mentioned in that paragraph. The paragraph then goes on to include a Langdell claim that EA are acting disingenuously when the paragraph doesn't include any criticism of Edge/Langdell. That's just the first paragraph. Its miles away from NPOV. - X201 (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Product catalog -- From blog posts and the original USPTO filing itself where the image was submitted and other USPTO filings in the EA/Edge/Future petition action (which admittedly is research that is not permitted here, and from unreliable sources, which are also not permitted). Actually, taken as a whole this section alleges several things in the existing text - that Edge did not sell any products, that Langdell is guilty of fraud, that "Langdell's" marks were stripped from him and that Langdell could face criminal charges. None of this turned out to be true, and the NPOV additions simply give the other side of each of these allegations showing what the true balanced, NPOV view is. Because of how the original text was written it may seem unbalanced at the start, but by the end of the revised edit I believe it is 50%/50% with each side (EA/Edge) having equal time and say. My revised edit I'm just about to make hopefully makes this easier to see. Vertisis (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, bear in mind that this 'edge' trademark being renewed was co-owned by Edge Games and Future Publishing, so Langdell was renewing it on behalf of Future, presumably with Future's approval. Certainly, as far as we know, 6 years later in 2010 Future had never protested the way that their trademark was renewed back in 2004. When you take that basic fact into account it becomes hard to see what Langdell's motivation could have been to use 'fake' evidence of use when there was such plentiful 'genuine' evidence in the form of Future's magazine covers. The idea that the Edge Game's image, whatever it is, was a fake just doesn't make sense, although EA clearly did a good job of convincing the judge there was an issue here when probably there wasn't. I think the greatest trick EA pulled on the judge was to refer to the trademarks as "Langdell's" and hide from the court the fact they were co-owned by Future. What I don't understand is why Edge Game's attorneys didn't point this obvious fact out to the judge. Perhaps they weren't given the opportunity? Vertisis (talk) 13:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is all OR and speculation. The sources cover it as a fake image, so that's what we have to say. I think you need to tone down how antagonistically you view EA in your posts, it doesn't help the argument that we're seeking a balanced NPOV. -- ferret (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. Hopefully you can see though that my new edit below is a genuine attempt at a balanced NPOV, neither taking EA's side nor Edge's. Vertisis (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Will an RFC help?
No offence to any involved parties intended - the process of this has been most civilised, but I think this article would benefit from an RFC to gather wider input/opinions. At the least I think an appeal for help from Wikipedia editors with legal experience would help us through the legal waffle. Opinions? - X201 (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not confident it'll actually bring people to the article, so I'm ambivalent. What would be the question of the RfC? czar ♔   13:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * X201 -- possibly, but also ambivalent. If so then further down the road once we have at least some semblance of an NPOV edit of the very biased POV existing text. I suspect if we could get an RFC it would be a lengthy process before any consensus was reached to make any further edits. So I would be opposed to an RFC if you are suggesting this instead of making 'best effort' NPOV edits at this time.Vertisis (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Further Revised Proposed Edit
As before, revisions in italics and this time using a reflist. Only one new citation is used which corrects the first cite in the existing text that is supposed to be to the EA petition but is instead to the Edge law suit. This edit corrects that to being to the EA petition as the existing text states. This edit is now extremely close to the existing text, only correcting errors and giving Edge Games about as much say in the issues as EA.


 * Notes


 * References

Vertisis (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So, this edit meets with everyone's approval? Vertisis (talk) 13:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure Justia is a reliable source. It hasn't been discussed at WP:RS/N but I'm not inclined to think it is. And why are the USPTO sources necessary? czar ♔   00:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, all these are the sources in the existing text, selected by the original editor(s) 4 years ago. I was careful not to change any sources for this edit (other than correcting the first, obviously incorrect, one), and instead just carefully quoted more accurately and in a more balanced way from the existing sources. Vertisis (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The first line: "In September 2009, Electronic Arts petitioned the US Patent & Trademark Office to cancel a range of registrations associated with the mark “Edge”, naming Future Publishing and Edge Games as the defendants in the action." Future were not named in the case at the start. Future were only added to the case in July 2011, after the cancellation agreement between EA and Edge Games was agreed. so to say EA named Future as a defendant in 2009 is incorrect. - X201 (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks X201. Unfortunately what you state may be true but it's original research, which as you know I have been told we cannot do as editors. You may recall that I tried to introduce the fact that Future were not initially a party to the Petition. And that they were added in early 2011 at the time they submitted a document stating that both the 2010 Court action before Alsup and the settlement between Edge and EA were invalid since Future would have needed to be a party to the court case and the settlement for either to be valid. I was told I could not write that as it was OR. We thus have to state the record exactly as we see it (which is that the petition names Edge and Future as equal co-defendants with no indication as to when each defendant was named), or we go back to the version I proposed a few weeks ago. Namely, we state that Future were added as co-defendants and co-owners of the marks in early 2011 at the time that they protested that both the Alsup court case and the EA/Edge settlement were invalid. But we can't just add that Future were added later without giving that additional detail as to why they were added and what they said about the validity of the court case and the settlement. I preferred this latter approach but was told I could not do OR, and thus had to state exactly what is in the source with no research or speculation. Vertisis (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The current reference is being incorrectly used to support the claim that Future were part of the case from the start, which they weren't. We have plenty of sources that state EA vs Edge was the initial action. Stating that Future were party to the initial action is just plain wrong. - X201 (talk) 08:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I take your point, and tried to address it by saying Edge and Future were named in the action rather than saying both were defendants from the start of the action. However, to remove the reference to Future and make it seem like the petition only involved EA and Edge would also be just plain wrong. How about this?


 * That seems to be the very minimum that can be added to give a basic clarification beyond the attempt at a neutral statement that I currently have that simply states who the named defendants are. To say any more seems to be OR, but to say less seems just plain wrong. (Update July 16 - I amended the main proposed edit to reflect this revised text) Vertisis (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The first paragraph: The part reporting Langdell's response is unbalanced. Part of it is OK, Langdell putting his side of the story regarding EA's claim of "continued legal threats", that section is OK. But the section that lists Langdell's validation of its trademarks and their veracity is not balanced, as it lists Langdells defence but the paragraph doesn't contain EA's claim that the trademarks were obtained by dubious means. We either need to add EA's claims or remove Langdell's defence, otherwise it will be unbalanced. - X201 (talk) 08:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. The existing text in the section doesn't make this clear. I have thus added a sentence that clarifies why EA filed their petition. This is now balanced. Vertisis (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe I've dealt with the only objections raised to this new edit. It now seems balanced and NPOV, so I presume I can now update the main article with this version? Vertisis (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Object: This is such a large edit you're going to have to give us more time. There are still points about the rest of the text that need to be raised. Others haven't even had a chance to respond to the changes to the first two points that were raised.- X201 (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But to be fair here, we are on the third major rewrite of this edit. And all the criticisms and comments so far have been dealt with. If there are others, then let's discuss them. If not, surely we can agree this edit is at least better -- more neutral/NPOV -- than the existing text and should go live at least until more work can be done here in Talk to improve it further. Are there any other questions or objections about this latest draft? Vertisis (talk) 05:21, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I realise this has taken a long time and I appreciate your patience in this. In an attempt to speed things up, I'll ping  and  to get some input. As for the things that I think need sorting:
 * 1) This last paragraph seems to repeat itself a number of times.
 * 2) There is some POV language surrounding the trademarks "what the source referred to as "his" ", "trademarks co-owned by Edge Games and Future Publishing" - Future owned a small piece of a single trademark, this reads as though Edge and Future were equal partners.
 * 3) The whole settlement thing needs to be made clearer. Its currently scattered around the last paragraph and the end of the preceding paragraph.
 * 4) I think "opined" and "speculated" are loaded words for the judge's statement. What is wrong with "the judge said" instead?
 * 5) The magazine cover doesn't need allegedly. There's no doubt that Edge submitted the cover, the only doubt is over what its was a cover of.
 * 6) The part that says the magazine "referenced his own products and organization" reads as if the magazine contents were this. I don't think we have a reference for the contents of the magazine, so we need to be clear that the comment is only referring to the cover.
 * 7) We need to try and cover the end of the case. Future appealing the cancellation, then not, and the trademarks finally being cancelled.

I'd prefer to get those sorted out on this page, and upload it as a finished section. But I'm open to what others have to say as well. - X201 (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am working on a reply to this now, may be a bit but should have something today. -- ferret (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are my responses to your 7 points X201, in the order you wrote them (Ferret, I respond to your points below).

Vertisis (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) The basic problem with the last paragraph is that the existing text is confusing since it is out of chronological sequence. To go some way toward helping the problem I added in "Previously" but it is still clumsy. But because it is out of sequence, it forces the edit to have to repeat things that were already said above. Is that what you mean? Would you let me do a new edit that puts all this back in proper chronological sequence in the text above it, rather than having this para be at the end like this?
 * 2) A key point that makes the existing text hard to read, and makes it almost impossible to understand this dispute with EA, is that it is written as if the "edge" marks in question are Edge Games/Langdell's. They are not, they are co-owned by Future. The moment the reader understands the marks are co-owned by them the entire picture becomes clear as to what was going on. In trademark law you are either a co-owner or not, it is irrelevant to say one party just owns a small part of the mark.If you are co-owners (even 99/1) then you are both are equally liable for accusations of fraud or accusations that the mark has been abandoned for non-use. It is thus accurate and NPOV to clarify that the source refers to the marks as "his" (in quotes) otherwise the reader is going to get even more confused that s/he already is by suddenly suggesting the marks are solely owned by Edge Games as if Future had no responsibility for them.
 * 3) Again this is because the original author(s) of the existing text did not put events in chronological order. I propose I do a new edit that puts everything in chronological order, which will make the entire section easier to read. Some existing comments will need to go, though, and perhaps some existing sources. For instance, why do we have anything in here about what the final court order is speculated to be when we have a record of what it actually was? It seems to me that most of the last para should just be deleted since it was speculation at the time prior to the final order and settlement being known. What purpose does reporting that speculation serve? I don't see any.
 * 4) That would be fine, so long as it says "the judge said in the opinion section of this ruling" or similar, since simply saying "the judge said" suggests this was what is called in legal terms "a finding" and none of what he said was a finding, it was just opinion (and that is the correct legal term for it).
 * 5) Agreed -- allegedly is there in the original text.I'll take this as permission to delete that. Actually, I checked again. Either Edge or Future had to do this renewal so it could technically have been Future who submitted the artwork in question. With OR we can perhaps suggest it was Edge not Future, but to be completely neutral we need to reflect the court documents and leave the 'allegedly' in, I think.
 * 6) Agreed -- I'll change it to make clear it is referring to the cover. Frankly, for this section to make any sense to the reader it really also needs stating that Edge and Future co-owned this mark being renewed, so Edge had zero reason to file a fake image when it could just file the Future magazine cover. Without that hard fact this section still reads like Edge filed something fake, which the final court order states it didn't. Adding in the fact that there was no reason to file a fake cover would help the reader appreciate why the final court order finds Langdell not to be guilty of fraud. But I know before I was criticized for OR when I tried to add anything like that in ...
 * 7) As far as I can see the secondary sources did not cover the end of the case. They jumped from active coverage in around 2009/2010 to virtually no coverage of Langdell losing "his" marks (with no mention that Future had also lost their marks) when it actually happened in 2013, to no coverage of any Appeal (someone just did original research and threw this comment in at the end). I can fill in the gaps from reading the Petition Action filings from 2011-2013 if you like, but I suspect Czar, in particular, will reject it as OR.

ferret's responses
I'm going to address the first paragraph first. I have enough comments here that I don't think it's productive to continue to the later paragraphs.


 * 1) First sentence. Why was this changed? Gamesindustry is a reliable source, but was removed here. Why was the sentence changed from "associated with Edge Games", which is accurate, to "Associated with "the mark "Edge".""? The USPTO source that has been inserted goes to the overall case, rather than the specific document of the filing, which is at, and clearly shows the filing was directed at the registrant "Edge Games, Inc."
 * 2) Fourth sentence. Reference to EA's ownership of common law trademark rights was removed. Why? It's clearly listed in the filing as well as the dowjones reference.
 * 3) Fourth sentence. Why is "continued threats of legal action by Edge Games" in quotes? This makes it appear as a direct quotation of EA, but none of the sources contain this that I can see.
 * 4) Sixth sentence. This sentence needs reviewed for COPYVIO, as it appears to be copied verbatim from the source, Escapist.
 * 5) Eighth sentence. Why has this quote been added at all? This sentence just serves as a soapbox for Langdell's quote and doesn't add anything pertinent to the article, nor help with balance.
 * 6) Final sentence. Recommend this sentence end with "on September 11, 2009" to show that EA abandoned efforts to register the trademark on the 8th, and filed the petition 3 days later on the 11th.

Between these issues, I don't think this edit can go forward as stands, especially the sixth sentence. It needs to be rewritten. I'll review later paragraphs once these concerns are addressed. -- ferret (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ferret. I'll respond to your six points in the same order.

Vertisis (talk) 13:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) First sentence. Because the key confusion that is likely to arise in anyone reading this section comes from people thinking the trademarks were owned by Edge/Langdell. They weren't, and if we set up this section with wording that suggests they were then it will make it very confusing to read. That is why I went with this wording -- it is entirely accurate, and while it does not track the exact wording used by the source, it makes the key issues in this section clear from the start of the section.
 * 2) Fourth sentence. In the current text it is stated as if it is a fact, and as if it was written by a member of EA staff (which it may have been). I could put this back in making clearer that this is one thing that EA claimed, but it should not be there as if it were a fact. Not least since you can't own common law rights to a trademark that someone else already owns registered rights to, which is what EA were trying to say. And yet to get into this level of legal detail will confuse the reader and get solidly into the area of original research.
 * 3) Fourth sentence. Because it is quoting from what the EA source said, hence the quotes. The quote from the source could be replaced by wording to the effect that EA alleged that Edge Games had made continued threats ... wording to that effect. Would you like me to reword it like that? I'm not sure it helps much.
 * 4) Sixth sentence. Yes, it uses text as close to the source as possible so that there could be no criticism for the words used as being not well founded in the source. You'd like it either to be worded differently but with the same meaning or would you like it put in quotes?
 * 5) Eighth sentence. It's there as the NPOV response to EA stating it had filed the petition on behalf of the game industry. It is necessary to give a balanced view. Without it we only have EA's side of this point.
 * 6) Final sentence. Agreed, that does tie the paragraph together better to add that. I'll do it.
 * Responses:


 * 1) First sentence. And the removed secondary source from Gamesindustry? Want to understand why we replaced with the primary source.
 * 2) Fourth sentence. I think this is one where the suggestion of an RFC for someone with legal knowledge would be useful, however it's in both the filing and the sources. It's one of EA's facts in their petition for why the trademarks should be cancelled. It may be useful to check to see if the settlement mentioned the common law rights.
 * 3) Fourth sentence. If it's a direct quote, we need a source that has that quote. I didn't find that direct exact quote in the sources we're using, so the quotation marks should be removed.
 * 4) Sixth sentence. I don't have any issue with the wording itself, simply the possible COPYVIO issues. Wikipedia has to be protected from any possible accusation of copyright violation, so it needs to be reworded as best we can to avoid having a direct copy.
 * 5) Eighth sentence. Need to trim down the quote to it's guts. I'd remove nauseatingly and disingenuously simply because it's unnecessary for the message to come across. I'd prefer to rework it from a quote into prose, but I think that very first part is what hurts NPOV the most here. Let's leave the flowery bits out.
 * -- ferret (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. My responses with the same numbering again.

I'll get on to all these (as well as those coming from X201's feedback) asap. Vertisis (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) First sentence. Good point. Not sure how that got deleted. At some point a cite got inserted for the Edge/EA lawsuit in 2010 which I deleted. Not sure why the Gamesindustry cite got deleted or when it did. But it's back in now.
 * 2) Fourth sentence. I'll check what Edge Games' response was to the common law rights claim by EA. And also whether the rights were mentioned in the settlement. But as Edge Games let EA go on and get registration of Mirror's Edge, the common law rights got superseded by EA's registered rights. So this is perhaps a non-issue?
 * 3) Fourth sentence. Right. Quote marks will be removed.
 * 4) Sixth sentence. I'll rewrite to avoid COPYVIO
 * 5) Eighth sentence. Noted. I think something of it could stay in, but I think "nauseatingly" should go for sure.

Federal Court ruling September 2008
"the Federal Court issued a ruling in favor of Edge Games in September 2008 finding that the company does own..." I've done a search for the September 2008 ruling and can't find it anywhere. The only mention we have of it is in this direct quote from Langdell himself, at present, we have no way of knowing what that ruling actually was and the only interpretation we have of it is Langdell's, which makes me uneasy about including it, because we don't know if he's correct. Does anyone know which case he was referring to in that sentence? - X201 (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is sounding like original research again. We should be cautious that we are not tending to quote what one side say on the basis that it is in a reliable source, and then hesitant to quote what the other side say. I checked the very earliest filings in this petition filed by EA at the USPTO and Langdell is apparently accurately quoting a 2008 Federal court case that Edge Games won. It was where Velocity Micro sued Edge Games for fraud on the PTO and abandoning the 'edge' marks. Here is the source I found: . The 2008 final judgment in Edge Game's favor is attached to this as Exhibit B. So the Langdell quote looks accurate and reliable. Edge Games did win the case with the judge ruling Edge wasnt guilty of fraud or of abandoning its trademarks through non-use. The Langdell quote should stay, I believe. Vertisis (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about adding it as a reference or WP:OR etc. It needs adding as an informative note so that people know what he's talking about. - X201 (talk) 08:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. It's a fine line between OR and adding an informative note. But hopefully you can see many of the changes I made to the main section itself are with the same goal in mind. Making the picture clearer to the reader regarding the marks not being owned by Edge (alone), etc. Vertisis (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Draft
Don't know why I didn't do it earlier. I've created a draft version of the article at Talk:Edge Games/Draft. I've uploaded the proposed changes as they stood at 10:00 GMT today. It will be easier to make and track changes on this rather than in the talk page. Just leave a note on the talk to alert people to any changes made that you want them to review. - X201 (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this helps a lot. -- ferret (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I have added a few line breaks to the draft. These are intended to be temporary and should be removed when the draft is finished. They were added to help the diffs line up and more clearly show the changes in individual paragraphs, particularily the later paragraphs. -- ferret (talk) 13:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits made
I've made the changes to the draft text according to the points made by X201 and Ferret. I didn't realize until I started editing that the draft version was not the same as the above version in the blue text box. Apparently X201 made some edits? I retained most of those edits, where they were accurate, and corrected others. I also added in a conclusion to the section, clarifying what happened in the time between the court order in 2010 and the marks finally be cancelled in 2013 followed by the Appeal that was withdrawn. Hopefully, this version can now be approved as at least far more neutral and NPOV than the existing very biased POV text written almost solely from EA's perspective. I have one further proposal -- deleting the paragraph about the magazine covers. I suggest this since it completely breaks the flow of the summary of events. What purpose does this section serve? Edge/Langdell are found not to be guilty of fraud in the final court order, so the purpose of this paragraph seems to be to try to convince the reader that Edge/Langdell were guilty even though they were not found guilty. Is that a purpose this article should be used for? Doesn't the magazine cover issue become moot with the final order? Does it really need to be detailed here given the outcome of the dispute? The whole section would read far smoother without it there. To indicate my proposal I have struck out the para for now. Vertisis (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please go back through and remove the italics and strike throughs. Now that the article is on a page, we can use a diff compare between the original version and the latest to see the changes. -- ferret (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Of course, I've done that now.Vertisis (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Vertisis, you keep saying NPOV over and over but several rounds of your revisions were decidedly not so. If it is truly a NPOV revision, let the revision speak for itself. The article is in such a sorry state right now that I don't know whether the recent editing has made it worse or better. It's uninteresting and difficult to read and contains all sorts of minutiae that do not help the reader understand what the hell happened. Also, as far as I'm concerned, my original questions of why the USTPO primary sources are needed have still not been answered. Even the proposed draft is so far from neutrality and readability that I cannot approve it in part or whole in good conscience. So I will try to put my money where my mouth is and rewrite the Edge (video game) article and make its presentation of the trademark litigation what I would expect of this Edge Games article. czar ♔   15:47, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Czar. I am sorry to hear you doubt if this revision is more neutral and NPOV than the existing text in the main article. The revisions are all ones that X201 and Ferret either did or asked to be done, as a result of our week or so of discussion of how to make the section read better and be more balanced/NPOV. The existing text in the article is written entirely from the EA POV, with no Edge Games POV at all, and has many errors and false statements in it that are not supported by the cites the existing texts uses. This latest revision in the Draft area has an Edge POV for each of the main EA POVs, although still has far more EA POV than Edge POV. It is thus far more balanced and NPOV than the existing POV error-filled text, but is still tilted more in favor of the EA POV. It should thus be acceptable at least as a better edit than what is in the current article text. As to the PTO and Justia sources, they were used in the existing text for the same reason they are still used here, namely there are no reliable secondary sources so primary sources are needed. Again, most of the PTO and Justia cites are in the existing live article text and have received no criticism for 4 years since they were put in there. Vertisis (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The length of time the article's sourcing went neglected does not justify the inclusion of bad refs. I'll say for the last time that those sources should be individually justified (they can't) or removed. On POV: it isn't our job to balance "EA POV" and "Edge Games POV" since we aren't journalists. We balance the "reliable sources POV", which is to say that we show the full range of what RS have said about a topic. We don't take a sentence from a secondary source and then a sentence from a primary source response to balance thoughts. We present the secondary sources and if something is really, really lacking, we can add a sentence from a primary source to fill in a logical gap, but the point is to present the reliable, independent, secondary sources and not to engage in the original research of saying which aspects are most important and missing from the secondary literature. To better understand what I mean by this, you might be interested in this article. czar ♔   15:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * With respect, that's exactly what we've done. Secondary sources have been used where possible and primary sources have only been used to fill in logical gaps. Whereas the existing live article text pulls only EA POV from the secondary sources, this revised edit pulls a more balanced (NPOV) from the same secondary sources. It doesn't do what you say -- it summarizes what the secondary sources state in a more balanced way. So instead of just quoting what EA said in the secondary source, we now also quote what Edge Games said. That is what we should be doing, and we have now done it. The existing biased error-filled text does not do this, that is why we are trying to replace it with a more balanced edit. Vertisis (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Attempt at primary sources justification. I'll have a go at this, Czar. This section is about US Trademark Office Petition to cancel several trademarks co-owned by Edge Games and Future Publishing. The secondary source indicates that a petition was filed, but to fill in the necessary logical gaps we put in the link to the actual petition filing and to where Future are brought into the petition as co-owners/co-defendants. Without these primary cites the logic of the article fails. They are necessary. Then there is the Justica cites that are central to the existing version of this section. I presume the argument from those who thought this section was worthy of coverage would say is that drawing from the Justica source is required to understand what Edge Games/Langdell was accused of. Then the PTO reference towards the end is used by the existing text because no secondary source covered the court's final order or the settlement between EA and Edge Games. Yet without coverage of the settlement and courts final order the section has no logical ending. Last, someone thought it necessary to add a PTO cite to mention the matter was appealed. I don't see why that needs to be there, especially since no secondary source covered any appeal as far as I can see. Vertisis (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit of Other Section
I've started an edit of the "Other" section dealing with supposed other trademark actions Edge had been involved in. At first I just corrected the line that reads "Edge has been a plaintiff in lawsuits..." since none of these were lawsuits. I thus corrected it to "USPTO trademark cases." However, I then realized there are no secondary sources here at all. Most of this "Other" section is original research with only primary sources. For this reason I deleted everything that does not have a secondary source. This includes the Razer and SL8 references, since they are pure primary source text. This also includes the Fuzzyeyes section since the only secondary sources just linked to the game in question, not to any news article. Since we have established there should not be sections that are pure original research with no secondary sources, I trust it will be all right for me to reflect these changes in the main article. I'll wait to see if anyone has any thoughts on this before I do it, but presumably this is an edit have pretty much automatic consensus on? Vertisis (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also added in the Cybernet section the key fact that the legal action settled with a court order in Edge's favor and with an amicable settlement. That conclusion was missed out, and is rather important if this part is to be in the article at all. Vertisis (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you take the effort to check if secondary sources exist, or just cull due to them missing currently? For example, Edge of Twilight can be sourced to, and that was in the first page of Google results. The Soul Calibre/Blade case is briefly mentioned in a source we already have,, so I didn't dig further. And so on... -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did try to look. I didn't see that Kotaku source but it does cover the issue briefly, including the fact of an amicable settlement which the current text doesn't mention. So that could go back in. As to the Soul Calibre/Blade, I did notice that source but couldn't see what was worthy of adding to the article. All that says is that Langdell confronted Namco, but there is no detail to report. Confronted about what? In what way? There is no report here of a trademark dispute, or what it's outcome was, etc. It didn't seem right to have a mention of it supported only by a vague reference to Langdell confronting a company, with no detail. I couldn't find any sources for the other issues. Vertisis (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added back in the Fuzzyeyes matter, updated for the fact the existing text is out of date in talking about it being a game in development, and adding a quote from the source you provided that clarifies the two companies reached an amicable settlement. The quote is helpful in that the Fuzzyeyes CEO clarifies that they approached Edge Games, and not Edge Games that approached Fuzzyeyes as the writer of the Kotaku article falsely speculated. Vertisis (talk) 04:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I see the hesitation below to approve the draft edit for the EA section, but are we all right to go ahead and agree consensus on the draft edit of the "Other" section? I believe I dealt with the only objections that were raised. Vertisis (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I only did cursory searches for sources earlier. Tonight I will do deeper searches to see if sources can be found for any removed sections and reply back. I do not have time right now. -- ferret (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on edits
If there are no further comments or requests for changes, then it would appear we have consensus on the EA section edit in Draft, and the "Other" section edit. I will thus transfer the edits to the main article. Vertisis (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep attempting this? Clear objections have been made. Waiting two days doesn't mean they go away. -- ferret (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The draft version is nowhere near balanced. Also, it still contains text that makes it look like Future were co-owners of all the trademarks, which they were not. - X201 (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As a neutral admin asked to look into this, please do not made your edits. We need to maintain a NPOV, and what I'm reading is clearly trying to paint Edge Games in a bad light. There is a neutral way to write these, but the edits you've done to date is not the way to do so. Be aware that at WP, we do have the concept of WP:DUCK - that is, if your actions appear to be like that of one that would have a conflict of interest, we will typically assume you have a conflict of interest and should not be editing. It does sound like ferret and X201 are willing to work to incorporate some of the material, but in a more balanced manner into the article. --M ASEM  (t) 15:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "and what I'm reading is clearly trying to paint Edge Games in a bad light." was that referring to the article space, or Talk:Edge Games/Draft ? - X201 (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was looking at this mainspace version. I realize that many in the VG industry do not see Edge Games in a favorable light, but we still need to cover it with balance, and I'm not sure if the draft is any better. --M ASEM (t) 15:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, needed to clarify. I'm in the same position, Mainspace needs fixing, but draft isn't the answer. - X201 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been sincerely trying to get a more balanced edit completed, responding to each criticism or suggestion and where reasonable, incorporating it. I'm not sure which version Masem was referring to, but it is clear that whoever wrote the EA section in the main article as it stands had the clear intention of painting Edge Games in the worst possible light. It is full of errors and does not even match the sources that it cites. In an attempt to get at least a somewhat NPOV version I have used the same sources but just done a more balanced version that draws on both what EA said and what Edge Games said in response. I do not understand why either Ferret or X201 are saying that the Talk/Draft version isn't at least better, more NPOV, than the main article currently is. What do you want changed in the draft to make it acceptable? As to the draft making it look like Future co-owned all the marks, as far as I can see that is true. But we are asked not to do original research here as editors, and all we can go by is that Future were added to the USPTO petition action as equal co-defendants (equal co-owners) with Edge Games, and since we can't do original research that fact needs to be all we reflect in the new edit. Put it another way, why shouldn't the new edit reflect that Future are named as co-defendants and co-owners of the marks? That is a simple fact based on the sources, and is far more NPOV than the existing article that clearly tried to deliberately ignore Future's role in the dispute and the ownership of the trademarks. For good reason, since it messed up their attempt to paint Edge Games in a bad light. We should remember, one reason the industry might see Edge Games in a bad light is in part because this article is so biased yet presumably industry members have relied on this article being accurate when it is not. Again, my sole aim is to make the article more balanced and NPOV, and I hope some positive suggestions as to how to achieve that can please me made if you sincerely feel the draft does not achieve it at least to an acceptable 'good first step' degree. Vertisis (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * re Future. The very same reference that you are using to advance the position that Future are equal partners, has a court submission from Future stating their position as owning a partial interest in a single trademark. You have no problem in using a primary source to advance this position, so using primary sources to correct it should be no problem. Both this reference and the USPTO trademark filing where the assignment to Future is made can be used to achieve this. - X201 (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I read the next few of entries in the USPTO record and Edge responds pointing out that two other of the five marks were also partially assigned to Future: both that are just "EDGE" and THE EDGE. The PTO eventually confirms some filings later that Future co-owns all three. But whether Future co-own one or three of the five in question, they should have been equal co-defendants in the Alsup case, yet it seems clear that EA deliberately spun what happened to make this all seem to be about "Edge Games' marks" since saying that Future and Edge were both accused of fraud and abandonment didn't achieve their goal of wanting to give Edge a bad name. I think rather than try to do a summary of the whole dispute, we should just hit the highlights. But the highlights need to include the fact Future was a co-owner of at least some of the marks and therefore should have been a co-defendant before Alsup - which is the key point to gain from what Future say in that particular 'intervenor' filing. Vertisis (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is the current state of the draft, to help bring the discussion back on the EA section versus others. This is a diff between the current draft version versus the original live copy: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEdge_Games%2FDraft&diff=618820478&oldid=617433825

I want to reiterate that NPOV doesn't mean we exclude facts because they may lead the reader to view Edge poorly. Our job is to present the facts in a neutral manner. One suggestion I have is to perhaps remove all of the quotes entirely. They charge the section with emotional words and also inflate the word count, which can be viewed as putting too much emphasis on this one event. For example, EA's quote about the dispute being "for the developer community" as well as the recently added retort from Langdell. The quote from Alsop, is it really necessary? This will help condense the section without remove any facts, and also remove any bias evident in the quotes themselves. -- ferret (talk) 14:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. I've been thinking of something similar as a starting point for a new version. Just list everything that happened as bullet points with a simple description, then work from that to link them together, to reach an article like you described. We don't have to balance everything that EA said with a defence from Edge, and vice versa. Just list the important points and state that they came to a no blame agreement at the end. - X201 (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. So far effort has been spent on trying to fix or alter the existing section. Let's get the details together in a list/timeline, sources included, and write it completely new from there, instead of trying to 'fix'. -- ferret (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm basically in agreement too, so long as the bullet points cover the fact of Future's involvement, and so long as it is clear that the result was Edge was not found to be guilty of the various allegations made. That is the main problem with the current text, that it is trying too hard to want the reader to think even now that Edge Games/Langdell are guilty despite that not being what the final court order and settlement stated. Again, it wasn't just a no blame agreement at the end, Edge/Langdell were specifically found not to be guilty and Edge specifically retained its common law rights on which the registrations were based, which is different. We thus need to avoid a summary that reads like a list of accusations against Edge Games followed by a simple statement that the parties settled. It sounds like the first step is a list/timeline. Vertisis (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Future were not involved. They only joined the legal proceedings when they appealed the agreement Edge and EA had already agreed to, after it had been approved by the judge. - X201 (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The primary and secondary sources show Future was involved. This section is about the USPTO Petition which ran from its filing in Sept 2009 to its end in April 2013. Future are not named at first but are added by the PTO as co-defendants/co-owners of the marks in May 2011. The Petition proceedings had been frozen (stayed?) until early 2011 so Future entered the Petition at the point it got properly started. But as to the dispute with EA, the sources show Future were involved from late 2008 when they joined with Edge to negotiate with EA over Mirror's Edge. They are definitely involved from summer 2009 when the sources show Future's head of legal insisting Edge take action and be more aggressive against EA. And then at the Alsup hearing in 2010 Future are not named as a party, but the sources show an employee of Future (Binns) joins with EA to attack Edge. So Future were involved in the Alsup case, too. Hopefully the list/timeline will help. It seems to get complicated mainly because EA and Future colluded to pretend Future weren't co-owners of the marks, and it back fired on them when it suddenly dawned on Future that their half of some of the Edge marks were being cancelled, too, not just the Edge Games half of them. Vertisis (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll start a list/timeline at the bottom below to make it easier to access and work on together. I'll start with a raw list without all the sources, and we can add sources as we go. Vertisis (talk) 13:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a whole lot of information that you claim is all in the sources. Why don't you convert that whole paragraph to a bulleted timeline with dates and links to the specific secondary source that shows it, so we can stop debating it and have something concrete. -- ferret (talk) 13:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Citation searching for "Other" section
In an effort to address the "Other" section above, where many second sources were missing, I've been doing some source research. Here's what I've found. All sources were discovered via WP:VG/RS's customized search, so should be reliable.


 * 1) 1UP - http://web.archive.org/web/20121017191753/http://www.1up.com/news/tim-langdell-set-lose-edge - Have to use the web archive, since 1UP is defunct these days. This was posted just before the final judgement in the EA case. It supports the reports of the falsified magazine covers, etc, and supports a mention of Namco's Soul Edge.
 * 2) SlideToPlay - http://www.slidetoplay.com/news/edge-trademark-battle-heats-up/ - Lengthy detailed source, from the Mobigame timeframe. Supports the Namco's Soul Edge paragraph. Mentions the Chaos Engine, a topic currently missing from the article.
 * 3) TouchArcade - http://toucharcade.com/2010/10/05/ea-wins-court-case-against-edge-games-founder-tim-langdell/ - Mobigame timeframe, supports the Namco's Soul Edge paragraph.
 * 4) GamesRadar - http://www.gamesradar.com/lawsuits-changed-gaming/?comment_ordering=oldest_first - Very brief mention here, but mentions Namco, Marvel and Sony. Probably too trivial though.
 * 5) Gamasutra - http://gamasutra.com/view/news/25448/EA_DICE_File_Complaint_To_End_Trademark_Issues_Over_Mirrors_Edge.php - Nice summary of EA case as it began. Mentions the "false" trademark filings with a retort from Edge, for a good NPOV coverage of that detail.
 * 6) Eurogamer - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-edge-of-reason - Believe I linked this one above, but touched briefly on Namco and Sony lawsuits in the Other section. Otherwise details the Mobigames case.
 * 7) Eurogamer - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/mobigame-langdells-lawyers-have-fled - Another mention of Sony lawsuit. Another mention of Chaos Engine as well.
 * 8) Eurogamer ES - http://www.eurogamer.es/articles/expediente-langdell-articulo - Very detailed and lengthy article chronicling Edge lawsuits. Touches on Namco, multiple paragraphs on Edge Tech, direct mention of Marvel and the film "The Edge". Google translate should suffice to get the details for EN.
 * 9) Gamasutra - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/125493/UK_Court_Rules_Against_Langdell_In_Edge_Magazine_Suit.php - Another reference to the movie "The Edge", the video game "Cross Edge", and the Wii controller "The Edge", in reference to Langdell claiming to be licensing them yet the court finding no evidence they were sold. Article about from the UK case of Edge v Future, and mentions many other licensees that were not actually being sold. It also covers the alleged alterations of trademark submissions.

Borderline RS:
 * 1) GamePolitics - http://gamepolitics.com/2010/10/07/mobigame-considers-legal-action-against-tim-langdell#.U9LX1PldXVQ - GP has been discussed once or twice at WP:VG/RS but has no direct consensus. I'm going to bring it up again after this. Mobigames time frame, mention of "Cross Edge"

-- ferret (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I read through these and have the following thoughts on them. In general I don't think any of them are usable for either the "Other" section or the EA section, which are the two we are focused on right now.


 * 1) This dates from 10.8.10, thus before final order that did not find Edge/Langdell guilty of fraud. This is a defunct website that is hard to accept as reliable source. In any event it just makes vague unsupported comments re namco. And the comments re the magazine covers is moot since Langdell found not guilty of fraud in the final order that happened after this article was written. Need to be careful not to repeat accusations against Edge/Langdell that were later ruled not guilty since it may make the editors sound as if they are trying to convince the reader that Edge/Langdell is ‘really’ guilty even though the court did not find it so.
 * 2) Seems to be based on an interview with Roskell who I researched and see he is an EA employee. Thus biased since EA were assisting Mobigame at this time to invent dirt on Edge Games. Do not regard this as a reliable source. It mentions Edge Games took Namco to court in 2001 but there is no sign of any court case in 2001 involving Edge Games and Namco and no other source has ever suggested there was such a court action. Hard to tell where this source is claiming it is getting its information from, but hard to see it as a reliable source that any editor should be quoting from in this Article.
 * 3) Just a brief article with no substance to it. Vague reference to a supposed Namco matter, but reported as if it was rumor rather than fact. Not a reliable or usable source.
 * Yes, too trivial.
 * 1) I see the statement by Edge that it didn’t commit fraud and this is what the final court order stated too. But we already have this NPOV coverage in another source already in the Talk:Draft Doesn't add anything new.
 * 2) This seems to be mainly about the Mobigame issue, so we may return to this when that section is discussed. But I don’t see anything about Namco and the sole reference to Sony is quoted from Edge Game’s rival Papazian of Mobigame who is hardly a neutral source to be quoting. Yet all he says is something about Edge pulling a similar stunt with Sony. Nothing of any substance that ought to be in a revised edit of the Article I think.
 * 3) Reference to Sony is quoted from Edge Game’s rival Papazian of Mobigame who is hardly a neutral source to be quoting. Yet all he says is something about Edge pulling a similar stunt with Sony. Nothing of any substance that ought to be in a revised edit of the Article I think. Need to be careful regarding the Chaos Engine references since according to the other source above they are linked to an employee of EA with vested interest and POV.
 * 4) I don’t think we should be translating Spanish websites for this. That could be seen as an over-reach in order to add further dirt to this article when we are trying to bring balance and NPOV to it.
 * 5) I can't see anything of relevance in this source to either the EA section or the "Other" one - the two sections we are focused on at this time. I can't see any reference to alleged alterations of trademark submissions. But I also don't see why you keep coming back to that point given it is moot since the court did not find Edge Games guilty of any alteration of trademark submissions.
 * 6) The GamePolitics source. Setting aside the disputed reliability of this source, I cannot see anything in this article that relates to either the EA or "Other" sections we are discussing.

From what I can see there is nothing that would justify adding back any of the other trademark disputes since in each case they are at most vague unsubstantiated references. Surely those are not worthy of adding to the main Article? Vertisis (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you can't just declare reliable sources...aren't... These are vetted sites the project has approved. Sources are allowed to be biased. We have to be neutral in presenting our prose, but we don't reject the sources because they aren't. Also, there's no requirement that sources must be EN, nor is using non-EN sources "stretching".. -- ferret (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't meaning to declare sources as unreliable, I was giving my opinion that they are not sources any responsible editor should rely on, not in the sense of not being reliable but in the sense of having nothing of substance to use in the Article. I think any time you spend a considerable amount of time digging around the Internet, turning to non-EN sources to find something to paint a company or its director in a bad light, is stretching what editors are supposed to be doing. But that is just my opinion. As I say, I cannot find anything in any of the sources you found that help us with either presenting a more balanced NPOV edit of the EA section, or of putting anything more in the "Other" section than I have put in the Talk/Draft edit as it currently stands. What do you see as usable? And how do you justify it is usable and reliable? Vertisis (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to have an issue with understanding NPOV versus presenting facts. "Edge Games was involved in a trademark with Namco over the name 'Soul's Edge'"... This sentence is 100% completely neutral. It doesn't present anything in a bad light, it's a verifiable fact with both primary sources and reliable secondary sources. That's ALL it is. Your basic position appears to be "We shouldn't list trademark disputes, despite available sources, because simply listing them puts Edge in a bad light." ... Well, that's simply an invalid approach. We present the facts neutrally. We don't exclude verifiable facts to make the subject "look better" -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We seem to be at cross purposes. I wasn't saying it wouldn't be accurate to just list the fact that Edge and Namco were in a trademark dispute over the name 'Soul's Edge'. I was suggesting to say more than that based on the vague and conflicting secondary sources would be questionable. It does remind me of something Czar said above a couple of weeks ago though, is it right that as editors of this article we reinforce the idea of defining a 30-year old game company by one aspect of its history? Its trademark disputes? While we scarcely cover its achievements, the games it produced, and so on? If its valid to list the trademark disputes, isn't it also valid to list some of the dozens of games it apparently did since the early 1980s? I'm just saying, as Czar did above, that the article seems badly slanted - something I think it looks like Masem picked up on too. So, it looks fine to add in a simple factual statement about the Namco dispute. But I can't see any basis for adding back in of the others. Can you? I note you don't suggest that it would be appropriate. Vertisis (talk) 03:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm simply using Namco as an example, since it was the first one in the section. If we have secondary sources, they should be added back to the section with a neutral sentence. You removed them stating that they had no secondary sources. I've handled finding those, from vetted reliable sources. If the company is best known for it's trademark disputes, that's unfortunately simply where the bulk of the article's content will lie. Presenting that information is not biased. We have to be careful in our wording and present the facts neutrally, not excluded them for "balance" (Which would be ORish). If we can find sources that bring up more information about the rest of the company's history, I'm 100% on board with that. We just have to be able to find something. Some of it, I believe, is actually contained in the trademark dispute sources I've found. You may want to re-read that Eurogamer ES in particular, as it may cover some of the early company history, such as the transitions from Softek to Edge Interactive Media to Edge Games. I know it's mentioned in some of the others, as well, and I believe one of your initial efforts was to more accurately reflect the actual company history. -- ferret (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ferrett. I think we are pretty much on the same page. What I was saying was that I think there is just sufficient mention in the secondary sources to make a statement that there was a dispute between Namco and Edge without relying on the primary source. However, I have just re-read your other sources and none of them justify putting any of the other supposed disputes back in since as far as I can see they would all need to rely on citing a primary source as they do in the existing Article. I too see that the Eurogamer ES supports one of the early edits I tried to make (but was over-ruled on), namely that Edge Games is a brand and corporate name that was founded in 1984 and has had several owners over the years, starting with Softek which was founded in the early 1980s (or the late 70s?). As I thought, suggesting this Article is about a corporation named Edge Games Inc or about an entity or brand that started as recently as 1990 is a mistake, and should be rectified. It appears Edge is one of the longest continuously operational game companies (perhaps the longest, given it is older than EA?) and perhaps that fact might deserve a mention, for instance. I will start a new section to revisit that. But I am concerned that we have too many concurrent proposed edits with none of them getting sufficient focused attention to get consent. For instance, everyone seems to be in agreement that the EA section needs change, and clearly Masem coming to this with fresh eyes saw it as an attempt to use Wikipedia to cast Edge in a bad light, which is not acceptable. But if we can't get constructive suggestions for alternate edits to the one I propose in Talk/Draft, then how can we get consensus? Vertisis (talk) 14:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Restore the entire Other section then, and I'll add the secondary sources myself. If there's too many proposed edits, then back off and deal with it one at a time. If your primary focus is the EA dispute, then leave the rest back in it's original state and deal with that first. -- ferret (talk) 14:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should stay focused on the EA section edit. It's been several weeks now, and it would be good to get some constructive proposals as to how to make an edit for that section final. Are you saying you have new secondary sources to support putting back in one or more of the other alleged trademark disputes? As I said above, none of the sources you've found so far justify putting any of them back in. Perhaps you can give us the new sources you find and if any justify putting an alleged dispute back in then we can do it on a case by case basis. But at the moment, the main source that these other disputes even might exist is this Wikipedia article, which is surely not the way articles are supposed to be used. Vertisis (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear that I believe the sources I posted to be sufficent. I'm sorry that you disagree. I am going to restore the Other section of the Draft back to the live copy, since we are focusing on the EA dispute at this time. -- ferret (talk) 14:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I understood the idea of the Draft page was to make suggested changes and then discuss them here. I feel we are still discussing this and so it was incorrect to restore the section to the live copy. I've thus changed it back to the version we are still discussing. Again, I don't see how the sources you proposed support mentioning at least most, perhaps all, of the additional alleged trademark disputes that are in the live version. For instance, where is the solid support in the sources for the existence of any actions relating to Sony, a movie called Edge, Planet's Edge, Edgegamers, Cross Edge, an action with Razer, etc etc. I see nothing in the secondary sources that states clearly that any such disputes between Edge Games and other companies existed. We should still keep a focus on the EA section, but it should be easy for us to reach consensus on this section since Czar said we should just delete any reference that relies only on a primary source. Vertisis (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

List/Timeline For Rewrite of EA Section
I'll add in the various secondary and primary sources that support each of these list items, relying where possible mainly on secondary sources as we have discussed. Vertisis (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Before I take the time to add in all the secondary and primary sources to this detailed list, I think it is too long for the article. The readers do not need to know every blow by blow of the dispute between EA, so here is my suggestion for a shorter bullet point list that covers the dispute to a level of detail I think is more suitable. I would appreciate your feedback on whether to go with the longer or shorter version as a basis for productive discussion of what will be updated to the article.

I've added in all the secondary and primary sources to support each of the bullet points. Only a couple of primary sources are needed to clarify the logic of the events, in accord with Czar's guidelines. While I tried to do a more succinct bullet list of just the highlights of the dispute, I see that it came out almost as long as the numbered list. But perhaps this list is a better basis for the edit? What do you think? Vertisis (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Since I see no objection to this version as being more NPOV and balanced per the suggestions made above to rewrite this section, I am editing the Talk:Draft to put this in prose form. If that is now acceptable I will then edit the live article accordingly since I presume we now have consensus. Vertisis (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This is pretty badly sourced with a huge reliance on primary sources. I recommend you visit WP:VG/RS and use the google custom search that is filtered to reliable sources to hunt down some more secondaries. There's also a host of them already listed in the Other discussion section, all reliable and some covering the EA case. There is no consensus at all currently, just to be clear.-- ferret (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I rewrote it to rely almost entirely on secondary sources. I removed most of the text that relied on primary sources. The only two primary sources remaining are the actual USPTO Petition itself (which is justifiable since that is what this section is about) and the source X201 put in to explain what 2008 legal case Langdell was referring to in the secondary source that is quoted. Presumably this edit is now acceptable. Vertisis (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This new draft version is completely unusable. Hugely reliant on OR of primary sources, along with other issues, such as mispresenting titles on citiations, i.e. you can't do things like linking to a source such as a USPTO posting http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92051465 and putting a title like "EA Petition to Cancel Edge/Future Publishing marks". Citation titles are meant to help combat link rot, and this page/petition does not contain this title or text.
 * Actually, the USPTO source for the EA Petition is named almost exactly what I named it. It is a petition by EA to cancel trademarks owned by Edge and Future. That is the title of the action on the USPTO website. That said, since we are seeking consensus, while I think you are wrong, I have abbreviated it to the hopefully acceptable shorthand of "EA Petition". There is not going to be rot of this link since it is a government website where pages cannot change.Vertisis (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Text like this simply must be removed: "Langdell was not found to be guilty of trolling the game industry, or of committing fraud on the USPTO, or of abandoning the "Edge" marks through non-use." Langdell was not found "not guilty". The settlement makes no mention of trolling at all. This is straight up OR of primary sources.
 * Not true. The final order by Alsup reflects the settlement between EA and Edge and states that Langdell is not found guilty of any wrong doing. The wrong doing alleged by EA, and discussed in the secondary sources is trolling, fraud on the PTO and abandoning the marks. Since he and Edge were not found guilty, the phase as it stood was an accurate summary of the sources. That said, in the hope of reaching consensus, I have reworded it to clarify that Langdell was found not guilty of any wrong doing, and then listed what wrongdoing he was accused of. This achieves a similar result, but is closer to the sources. Hopefully this is not objectionable since it is now entirely accurate. There is no OR here. Vertisis (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And so on. -- ferret (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Haven't digested it all yet, but I'm struggling to come to terms with what I have. Agree with what ferret wrote above but also want to add that the addition of the Binns evidence and no other, and not mentioning that Future removed their objection to the cancellation, is starting to make it look biased towards Langdell's version of events in the EuroGamer letter. - X201 (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the reference to Binns. I was trying to add clarity as to Future's involvement in the Alsup case, but agree this is too much like OR. Adding in any suggestion that Future removed their objection to cancellation would also be OR, so I take the point and we should not have any of this in there. I have now reduced it to only two primary sources. I do not see how to write this without those two primary sources since they are needed to give logic to the secondary sources. And referencing the actual petition filing given this section is all about the petition filing must surely be acceptable? Vertisis (talk) 05:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The only other primary source was the one added by X201. The footnote clarifying what Langdell meant by the 2008 case, and a link to it. I left this in because X201 put it there, but perhaps we should just leave the footnote in without linking to the primary source? Would that edit have consensus? Vertisis (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As to the end of the section that draws heavily on the EA Petition on the USPTO site, since none of this was covered in secondary sources (we concluded that above in Talk), we either cut this section off without an ending as to how matters were concluded, or we leave it as it is with this minimal reference to the USPTO source. I can't see a third alternative. X201 previously said the section needed a conclusion and this is the only way I can see it being achieved. Vertisis (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)


 * We should bear in mind that clearly Langdell/Edge traded voluntarily giving up the trademarks in return for not being found guilty of trolling, fraud or abandoning the marks. Since he was found not to be guilty, I think the level of coverage in this proposed edit of what he was accused of is as much as can be justified given we are referring to accusations that were reversed by the settlement. To do more, or to slant the section more toward EA's view of events, would be to use this article just to paint Edge/Langdell in a bad light. Also, I note that in parallel articles (say Candy Crush Saga) we delete parts of articles where the dispute has settled. That may go for this EA dispute, but it certainly surely goes for all the tiny inconsequential issues that we don't even know if they were actual disputes (Planet's Edge, Sony, Edgegamers, Soul Caliber, etc) where they weren't even covered by secondary sources. Vertisis (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How do you know that "clearly Langdell/Edge traded voluntarily giving up the trademarks"? Is there a source for it? We know the action was that Edge voluntarily give up the trademarks, but we don't know the motivation for doing so. It could have been completely altruistic on Edge's part or it could have been their attorney's telling them that that they would have no chance in court, settle now. We don't know, therefore we have to be careful with the wording of Edge voluntarily giving up the marks. We must make it clear that the parties came to that agreement, but must not make it look like Edge was forced to do it, or that Edge did it in an altruistic way. - X201 (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is my conclusion from the secondary sources and from reading about the settlement. But I take your point that we should not be suggesting that Edge either was forced or did it altruistically. The current edit above (and in Talk/Draft) is neutral in this way, and thus is NPOV. I see that neither you nor Ferret have any constructive criticism of this new edit. If you do have any criticism of it can you please clarify what that criticism is, and most important can you suggest alternative wording. This has been going on for months now with you and Ferret blocking every suggestion I made but never suggesting alternative wording to move this edit forward. If there is no constructive criticism and alternate wording proposed, then as I understand it we can assume my version has consensus and it can go live. Vertisis (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you still don't understand how WP:NPOV works. If the sources aren't neutral, it is NOT our job to manufacture neutrality. Our job is to present the information found in the source in a neutral manner. The Candy Crush Saga is irrelevant, a small one time blip, whereas the Edge v EA case caught a lot of coverage and went on for some time, and is, whether he or we or you likes it, what Edge is now primarily known for.. Stop worrying about the Other section for now, and focus on the EA section. -- ferret (talk) 11:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In this edit I have not manufactured any neutrality. This edit is as neutral as I can get it (NPOV) by reporting in a balanced way what the secondary sources state without (as was warned against above) using wording as in the existing live article that has POV quotes etc that do no more than just try to make Edge/Langdell look bad. I see you have no criticism of this latest version now that I responded to all your prior criticisms. Can I presume that this edit has consensus then? If not, then if you still have criticism can you please make clear what it is, and most important suggest alternate wording so that we can put this edit to bed and take it live. I believe it would be reasonable to assume consensus if there is no constructive suggestion as to alternative wording and only vague objections to the existing wording. Please be constructive in your response if you have any so we can finally move this topic along and get on to the next section that needs discussion. I've already spent more time on this article than I intended to. Thank you. Vertisis (talk) 13:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will make some edits tonight to address the issues I see. I've tried relaying them here, repeatedly, but they seem to fall on deaf ears. I will edit the draft myself and we can discuss. -- ferret (talk) 14:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made a massive sweep of the reliable sources at User:Ferret/sandbox and made notes of the points each covers. I will shortly begin comparing the live article and the draft against the notes and preparing a new draft. -- ferret (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

ferret's draft
And my draft is now posted, fully sourced by reliable secondary sources. Nearly every mention of Future has been removed, because it was entirely OR that was never mentioned in a single secondary source. The reasons for the delay on the final cancellation has also been removed for the same reasons, no secondary sources covered the reasons and it was composed of original research from the primary source. Specific details of what the alleged fraud to the USPTO have been excluded, and quotations from EA and Edge left out to avoid bias. The continuous protestations of Langdell's innocence have been removed and replaced by a simple statement, backed by secondary sources, that neither party admitted wrongdoing as a result of the settlement. Langdell's protestations that he only sued due to Future have been removed. (I recommend building a small sub section at the end of the Trademark Dispute section concerning Langdell's efforts to fight his trademark troll label, see Edge Of Our Seats: The Return Of Dr Langdell)

I have left out statements concerning "Langdell may be subject to criminal proceedings" despite coverage in multiple sources simply because no such proceedings ever occurred. I did NOT leave it out because of the settlement, because the settlement itself does not protect him from criminal proceedings, as that was a civil matter. The simple fact is no one ever bothered to go after him about it. -- ferret (talk) 01:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Except that is not true, and it is a little troubling that you think its true. The settlement and Alsup order don't just have the parties not admitting to wrong doing, more important they have no party found guilty of any wrong doing. With the conclusion of the case being that Langdell was not found guilty of any wrong doing (including anything the online press were speculating might be "criminal") then there is no possibility that anyone could "go after him about it". It would have needed to be Alsup that made a finding that could potentially lead to criminal charges, and Alsup specifically made no such finding which is what the court and the parties agreed to. Vertisis (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And so, it was left out. -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ferret pinged me to look it over and I feel the section seems like a fair assessment on both sides nor painted either side in any other way beyond what the other side claimed, and what the legal results here. I would suggest that there's some proseline issues ("On (date), this happened...") but that's wordsmithing. --M ASEM (t) 02:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Have just read it and its a far easier read. It states the allegation and the rebuttal, it states the fake magazine allegation and states that there was no wrongdoing. Its balanced and wraps the conclusion up well. As Masem said, it could flow a little better around the dates, but that's mainly due to it starting life as a list and can be easily fixed. - X201 (talk) 08:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have wordsmithed a bit to adjust two of the sentences that lead with a date. Could possibly use more but reduced the "On date, this" just a bit. Also clarified that the "edge" mark had two registrations, and changed the word "stated" to "stipulated" to avoid repeatedly saying "This stated" in the final paragraph. -- ferret (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Good work on this. I started to tweak it, but I'm tripping on a few facts. It would be good to recap EA and Edge's negotiations as soon as possible after the intro sentence (so EA files with USPTO followed by explanation of how they got to this point). The mention of EA abandoning the Mirror's Edge mark at the end of ¶1 is somewhat awkward, so this type of rephrasing would fix that. Also the part where the note is used can be sourced to show how the note is factual. Ideally, it would also be expanded to explain the court case in brief. czar ♔   13:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Object: First, thank you Ferrett for a good first try at a new edit, but it is not balanced or NPOV since you have deliberately striped the prior edits of all mention of Future and have once again given the POV position propounded by EA that these were "Edge's" trademarks and that Edge/Langdell alone stood exposed to allegations of fraud, abandonment of the marks in question, etc. You are wrong that this topic is not covered anywhere in the secondary sources. The fact that Langdell states Future were co-owners of the marks, claimed ownership before the USPTO, and instructed Edge to sue EA, etc, is covered in at least these two secondary sources (one of which is already in the existing live article): Langdell refutes trademark troll tag and the secondary source you suggested we look at above regarding Langdell's attempts to refute the trademark troll label Edge Of Our Seats: The Return Of Dr Langdell. To have a balanced NPOV edit we need to mention these facts and they were covered in the secondary sources. I have thus made some suggested additions/changes and have also corrected some errors in your text. I am still working on the NPOV of this, so this is just my first proposal. (As I was writing this Czar contributed, and I feel he has some good points, too, that I will now consider). I welcome feedback and thank you again Ferrett for this draft. It's moving things in the right direction. Vertisis (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I read through those two sources and I'm not seeing what you want added. Something about how Future forced Langdell's hand? Both sources are skeptical of the EG press release at the core of the article and all of the claims made in the press release are dependent on the result of the impending "appeal" mentioned. (Was there a verdict on this appeal? From the Future section it seems that none was ever filed.) It would seem to make more sense to keep mention of Future to the Future section. czar ♔   14:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been searching for any sign of the appeal and can't find one. I know that the judge made their initial ruling in the UK case in June, but they also made another ruling or somesuch in July, but I can't find out what happened in July. Edge appealed the removal of the UK trademarks, with the UK trademark body, but that was rejected. - X201 (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is "potentially leaving him open to legal action from other companies to whom his legal threats may have incurred losses or expenses" necessary? czar ♔   14:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is, not least since in the four years since this happened there has been no suggestion that any company took any such action or even thought they had a right to. Not least since in the final order Langdell/Edge were found not to be guilty of any wrongdoing. I think this is secondary source hyperbole and is not necessary. Vertisis (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have left "potentially leaving him open." removed. Several sources mention it, but like possible criminal proceedings, it doesn't appear to have ever happened. I have also re-removed Vertisis additions concerning Future co-ownership. None of the sources cover it, so no. I have for now left in the statement from Langdell saying Future pressured him, but as Czar pointed out, the sources being used are skeptical and came years later. I have also re-remove the assertion trying to mitigate Alsup's position, this is a whitewashing trying to mitigate how things ended. The sources don't mention it, and it's unimportant. However, I did keep the change of "Alsup ruled" to "Alsup stated". Please please please understand NPOV isn't about making sure Langdell isn't in a negative light. It's about presenting the sources neutrally and not excluding sources to support either EA or Langdell. If you want to try to make Langdell looks "better" then bring us a source that supports it. -- ferret (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Object: The sources for Future being a co-owner of the marks in question and being the entity that insisted Edge take action against EA did not happen "years later" they were in 2011 months after the court order, and while the EA issue and the outcome of the court case was still being discussed in secondary sources. We have two sources (at least) that confirm Future was partnered with Edge in the dispute against EA, and that Future was a co-owner of the marks in question. While we try to avoid OR, this section is about a petition before the USPTO and we can see from just glancing at the petition that Future are a co-defendant with Edge. What we cannot see, without OR, is when Future were added, or why they were added. Thus to be NPOV and present a balanced account of the secondary sources (rather than just ignoring the sources that support Edge's position), we must add back in reference to Future. In fact, without Future being added in it would be impossible for anyone reading this article to understand what happened and they will be left with the false impression this was a dispute solely between EA and Edge, which it clearly was not. So I am putting that back in. And I agree with Czar too that when we come to edit the Future section, we need to cross reference their involvement in the EA dispute. But it wouldnt make sense to not mention them in the EA section and then mention in the Future section that they were involved. The two sections, when complete, should be consistent. Vertisis (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We know when Future were added, they were added after the final judgement, when Edge tried to give up the trademarks. Future were added due to their letter of 4 April 2011, they intervened to object to the voluntary surrender that Edge had agreed to. - X201 (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have left Future in for now, even though I disagree. Future had no involvement in petition until after the civil suit was concluded. Also, please STOP adding the statement trying to whitewash Alsup's findings. If you'll stop fighting for that sentence, which has been objected to for over a month on this talk page with the various ways you've attempted to add it, I believe we can move forward and push this update live. -- ferret (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus sought - Move current draft to live
I propose that the current draft for the section Electronic Arts petition for trademark cancellation, as it exists in this diff, be moved to the live article. I believe the current draft is substantially improved over the live version, and while further changes and tweaks may occur and we will continue to adjust, the draft version is in a position to replace the existing live section, which all involved editors appear to agree is NPOV and in poor shape. Please agree or object here. Please only object if you feel the current draft would worsen the live version. The result of this consensus will not prevent further improvements to the draft space, and is only intended to improve the live version while discussion continues. -- ferret (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree - As proposer.-- ferret (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose if you insist on leaving the judge's comments POV, but Agree if you will permit the entirely accurate statement to remain in that the judge does say clearly in his Order that he is not going to be judging the final case at trial and that the jury might reach a different conclusion. This is not "whitewashing" what the judge said, it is giving an NPOV of what the judge said. The fact is in order to sign the final order that made Langdell/Edge not to be found guilty of any wrongdoing we therefore know that the judge was somehow persuaded to change his opinion that he expressed in the Oct 1 order. Since we know he changed his position (he would never have signed the final order if he still held the views you are insisting on quoting him saying), then at the very least we can do a proper job of NPOV and show that he acknowledged his view may not be the final one decided upon at trial. I am feeling a little bullied, since I still feel all my edits were far more balanced than the existing live article, yet you would never let any of them go live pending further edits. We are apart on one tiny point, I respectfully request you permit my more balanced version that doesnt make it sound like the judge found Langdell/Edge guilty when that was not the final outcome. Vertisis (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, unless you can show me some secondary source that specifically includes this. Not a single source ever mentions a jury since there never was one. Much like the criminal proceedings and "potentially leaving him open.", a jury trial never happened so it's irrelevant. The subject of the sentence is the denial of the injunction, and in denying the injunction, Alsup was clear that it was denied due to evidence of fraud. Since the parties settled (Including the usual "no wrongdoing by either party"), what a jury trial may or may not have found later is irrelevant. Including it is whitewash and weaseling to try to make Langdell look better in a way the sources don't cover it. -- ferret (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The judge didn't not rule to deny the injunction because of evidence of fraud. He ruled because of the balance of probable outcomes as he discusses. He didn't rule on fraud, the only ruling he gave was to deny the injunction. Since it was a jury trial, the judge had no basis to make a decision or ruling on issues like fraud, abandonment of marks through non-use, etc. He makes no finding regarding fraud, or abandonment, he only offers his opinion. There is no "whitewashing" -- check out the top of page 21 of his Decision Alsup Decision on Injunction. He says "While a jury may ultimately find otherwise..." which confirms that it was a jury trial. Since it was a jury trial as is usual Alsup was only giving his personal opinion since a judge in a jury trial has no say in whether anyone is guilty of fraud, does not get to rule on fraud, etc. That is a simple fact. He qualifies his speculations by pointing out it is a jury trial and that the jury may find otherwise, and that NPOV is essential for this section to have balance. Vertisis (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are going to say that the comment about it being a jury trial is not in the secondary sources, then I ask you to consider this hypothetical. If a judge in another matter had said a Mr Smith was in his opinion guilty of murder, and buried in his two pages of statements about Smith he puts a comment that he isn't the judge on the Smith case, but another judge is, then if the secondary sources only decided to write this up as "Judge finds Smith to be a murderer" would you condone an article on Smith being written up that way? If you can see that in the judge's writing he says he is not the judge so his opinion is ultimately not relevant? And what if the other judge eventually finds Smith not guilty but the secondary sources do not report that fact? Would you condone the article reporting that Smith was found guilty of murder? I trust you would not, I trust you would see the common sense in checking the primary sources. The same thing here: Judge Alsup says its a jury trial, so his opinion actually means nothing and should be given weight accordingly regardless of how it was handled in the secondary sources. We need that one quote from Alsup's own mouth to clarify the logic of this section. Vertisis (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I really have nothing more to say on the topic, my position isn't going to change. The article must reflect the secondary sources. Everything Alsup said has weight in the context of denying the injunction. The trial never went to jury. We present it as the sources cover it. You're relying on an OR interpretation of the primary source. You're going to have to decide whether or not we just keep the very flawed live version, or move on, even if you didn't get every detail you wanted in the end. -- ferret (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As Czar previously said above, it is acceptable to cite a primary source if it helps with the logic. Here it is vital to see Alsup's opinions in the context that he himself said it was a jury trial and the jury might find differently. It is thus centrally important that this fact be know in order to understand how much weight to give Alsup's comments and why the Final Order does not have Edge/Langdell found guilty of anything Alsupt was talking about. It is not relevant that the matter never went to trial, but it is critically relevant that this was jury trial case not a judge trial case. It is such a small point, and can easily be checked by just looking at p21 of Alsup's first Order. That is a quick check that does not amount to extensive OR that might be frowned on. The fact that no secondary source may have covered this is the reason to for this one point refer to the primary just for clarity and logic. We are "there" on an agreement to be able to take this live except for this one point. And surely you can see where the judge himself says the jury might find differently. Cant we just agree this and move on?Vertisis (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your position just fine. I simply disagree with it, and am not going to budge in this case. I will not support any edit that contains the sentence concerning a jury trial. -- ferret (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the other source I referenced below, it is well established that this case was set for a jury trial. Help me to understand why you are so opposed to this fact being mentioned? Why do you disagree with mentioning what the judge himself felt was important to mention? He didn't want the readers of his opinion to think any of this was his decision, and wanted people to know the jury might find differently when the case is properly heard and all the evidence presented, etc, so why do you not want it to be known? Vertisis (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed because you're using it as a way to try to lessen the impact of the injuction ruling and why Alsup denied it. I've said that repeatedly in multiple ways over the last couple of months. However, in the spirit of compromise, how about we add back the direct examples of fraud and image altering, as well as the statements concerning possible criminal proceedings and possible liability from the trademarks being cancelled? Those can all be 100% reliably sourced to secondary sources. However I left them out as a compromise towards you. If we add them back we can possibly work in the jury detail somehow? I'm not trying to be factious, but you need to understand there have already been a lot of compromises aimed at addressing the concerns you've advocated for this entire time. You might want to reevaulated whether or not it's worth pressing for more. You've essentially gotten what you wanted. -- ferret (talk) 11:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just trying to get a balanced edit, not "what I want" personally. And the key problem is that the judge did not deny the injunction because of fraud, and specifically he made no finding as to fraud. Your argument is exactly why the judge's qualification of his remark (saying the jury may arrive at a different conclusion) is so important: without it in there then people may get the wrong idea, like you, that the reason he denied the injunction was because of the fraud with the implication he ruled there was fraud (or trolling). He did not. The conclusion clearly states (which is in line with the secondary sources) that the injunction was denied for two reasons, that Edge Games had waited too long after the launch to ask for an injunction and that Edge Games had not proven it had a large enough reputation that EA's game might be confused for one of Edge's games. Nothing about fraud/trolling/etc. And if you can get this fact wrong then so will others if the minor clarification about the jury is not mentioned to ensure the edit is balanced. It is a fact that the judge did qualify his remarks by saying the jury might find differently. He felt it was necessary to make that clarification so that his comments would be read in perspective, why do you not agree with what the judge himself thought was the right thing to do? Vertisis (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've gotten no facts wrong. I'm well aware of what he ruled and why, but we have to present what the secondary sources covered. Broken record, broken record, broken record. I guess we'll just stick with the live version then? Or wait for 2 more editors or so to support going forward. Your call, but as I said I'm not budging on this sentence. -- ferret (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree -- OK, let's take the latest edit live with all the changes Ferret said he would agree to leave in regarding Future, etc.Vertisis (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. What source are you using to show that the judge did not find Edge guilty? czar ♔   15:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I support pushing the draft section live—it's an improvement over the current version. I don't see what sources substantiate Vertisis's objections. czar ♔   16:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The primary source, which is core to the issue since it is what the secondary sources are referring to, states clearly that Alsup qualified his remarks by saying the jury might eventually decide differently. Since Alsup does not rule on fraud, non-use, etc, in order to appreciate the logic here it is essential to permit this one reference to the primary. The fact about the jury is easy to check and involves no real OR or interpretation - it is in black and white in the Judge's own words. Without this in there it reads as if Alsup personally thought Edge/Langdell were guilty, and that what he thought was critical, but that he permitted Edge/langdell to 'get away with it' by permitting the Final Order. Its a small difference, but a critical difference, and one that just goes to balance and NPOV. We are essentially in agreement, and I ask that you please agree to this one last point so we can have consensus and take it live Vertisis (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you may say it is another primary source, but here is a neutral source stating the simple fact that the Edge vs. EA law suit was filed demanding a jury trial: Jury Trial Demanded. For anyone at all knowledgeable about law suits, whether its a jury trial or a judge trial is a critical difference whether or not it goes to trial because for a jury trial what the judge says in theory is irrelevant. Whereas in a judge trial the judge's opinion is critical and central. To put Alsup's opinions in context it is important the readers appreciate it was a jury trial matter whether or not it ever went to trial. Vertisis (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this the subject of your dialogue with Ferret above? If so, it should be straightforward to see that if a secondary source does not make the jury claim outright, it would be patent original research to come to that conclusion ourselves when citing a primary source. Actually it's explicitly the original research we do not do. czar ♔   15:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree -- OK, let's take the latest edit live with all the changes Ferret said he would agree to leave in regarding Future, etc.Vertisis (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the latest draft version of this section to the live article. -- ferret (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Archiving some talk sections
I am going to be archiving some talk sections that are no longer relevant as the talk page has gotten pretty long. Please start new sections and refer to the archived section where appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 18:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Edge Games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714212143/http://english.capital.gr/News.asp?id=822694 to http://english.capital.gr/News.asp?id=822694
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091230091922/http://www.touchgen.net:80/update-on-edgy-lawsuit to http://www.touchgen.net/update-on-edgy-lawsuit

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)