Talk:Star Wars Galaxies/Archive 3

First Expansion
The first expansion is listed as "An Empire Divided" that is the subtitle of the original game. The First expansion that opened space to the game was called "Jump to Lightspeed". It was written multiple times with the wrong title. It is written in the "history" part of the article. Can somone please decide how to change this?66.252.186.181

This appears to have been corrected. "Initial Release and Expansions" with the first expansion being JTL. Wizzard2k 18:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Freeman "Controversy"
Removed the completely ridiculous Jeff Freeman reference. Take your smear campaign on developers you don't like to the MMORPG.com fourms.I understand you don't care for the game now but leave the personal attacks out of the refernces.BaronJuJu 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL, your attempts to censor the record on Jeff Freeman were immediately reverted by someone else and then you got warned. u gotz pwned. kekekekek :) Jonawiki 19:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a smear: "provided an endorsement of the NGE on his blog" - because it isn't true, and even links to references that prove it isn't true. I'm not going to edit it because it is about me, so I can hardly be unbiased, but you are, in fact, waging some kind of personal war against SOE/SWG and me, and shouldn't be allowed to touch anything related to any of it. At least your attempt at recruiting meat-puppets from MMORPG.com seems to have failed. Skeptack 19:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh my. I think you misunderstand me. I just want to bring to light the truth, that is all. I'm sorry that you personally find the verifiable truth to be unappealing. Jonawiki 20:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you two going to act Civil, or do I need to bring someone in? Antman -- chat 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have some issues with quotes being taken out of context, and especially filtered down to present only negatives about myself and the NGE. I don't understand what really warrants a mention at all, apart from Jonawiki's personal problem with me. i.e. he hates the NGE, blames me for it, and wants to publish this negativity on Wikipedia. There were other developers who have also spoken publicly about the NGE. So why I am the only one mentioned? Skeptack 20:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are other devs who have spoken publicy about the NGE in a manner that conforms with WP:ATT, please let me know and I will be sure to include them. Trust me, I will get to Smedley soon enough. Fear not, you won't be the only dev mentioned in this affair by the time I am done ! :) Jonawiki 20:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this statement makes it pretty clear, you're on an attack mission, here. Skeptack 20:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I guess it's easier to attack the messenger (i.e. me) than the message.... Jonawiki 20:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The message is the problem: it is filtered so as to support a particular point of view. Call that point of view "the truth" doesn't actually make it so. Skeptack 20:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Per WP:ATT: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true" Jonawiki 22:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're pasting together snippets from sentences posted at different times, in different threads, to reconstruct a new paragraph full of "quotes" from me. To put it bluntly, you're a liar. Enough is enough. Skeptack 18:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling me a liar as you just did is a serious violation of No Personal Attacks and  Civility. You have admitted that you are biased because it's about you. So your frustration on this is admittedly no longer germane to the validity of the edits. I bear you no personal malice. Please conduct yourself with the docorum as required by Wiki policies. Jonawiki 19:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, you poor victim. I'm done discussing this with you. Skeptack 19:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok. Jonawiki 19:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoa, what? So you're openly saying that you're just grasping at excuses to post stuff that isn't true?  I'm fairly sure that WP:UCS and/or WP:POINT would take effect there. R4gamuffin 04:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. He's made it quite clear that he just wants to make a personal crusade against any SWG devs he knows about right here. Skeptack 18:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Jonawiki, please read WP:POV and WP:NPA. Antman -- chat 20:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The only people who can be blamed for the NGE are the poor researchers at SOE, and their marketing department. I fail to see the importance of that section in this article. Antman -- chat 20:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Freeman is mentioned in Slashdot, so it conforms with WP:ATT. Plus, Slashdot is notable. Freeman is linked to the NGE controversy in Slashdot. Freeman posts in MMORPG, so that conforms with WP:ATT. Freeman publicly repudiates his past behavior and his prior employer with respect to the NGE. That's why I think it's relevent. Jonawiki 20:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't about notability, it simply has nothing to do with the article. Antman -- chat 20:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How is Freeman NOT relevant to SWG and the NGE controversy? You can't just deny it without further explanation. He is mentioned as being connected to it in Slashdot. He published his opinions on it in his blog. He then completely reversed his position on it PUBLICLY on MMORPG.com. I know you're a game dev yourself per your user page. Do you feel professionably uncomfortable with setting the precedent for a game dev being held accountable publicly for poor design decisions? If not, then please provide more justification than "no, it's not connected". In the meanwhile, I will revert your deletion of content. Jonawiki 20:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Being a former SWGEMU dev who was mostly blamed for the failure of CORE1, that's a stupid questio, User:Jonawiki. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA, not a blamebook. I will revert your edits, and then ask an administrator to lock the article, if that is what you want. Antman -- chat 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I see we are back on the smear campaign again eh Jonawiki? How long does this take before this Personal Attacking becomes Disruptive Editing?BaronJuJu 21:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I published opinions about one piece of it on my blog. You're misrepresenting that as "an endorsement of the NGE", using references which themselves explain that. Skeptack 20:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And again, you state your mission: "Do you feel professionably uncomfortable with setting the precedent for a game dev being held accountable publicly for poor design decisions?" Nevermind that only by laying the entire NGE design and every part of it in my lap can you express your opinion that "poor design decisions" were made, and by me - Wikipedia isn't even the right place to put your soapbox. Skeptack 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think what's written implies that the fault of the NGE is placed entirely in your lap. It just says that you endorsed it, then hid your endorsement, then backpedaled on your endorsement. It doesn't say that you designed and championed the entire NGE by yourself. Jonawiki 21:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Made another edit to make it clear that Freeman was not solely responsible for the entire NGE. Hopefully that will address his concerns. Jonawiki 21:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * But now you say I made an "enthusiastic endorsement", which is untrue, and certainly unattributed, since it is your personal opinion of how to interpret something you can't even provide a reasonable cite for. How about you stop using Wikipedia to attack me, is that too much to ask? Skeptack 18:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, blatant smear campaigns with made up "facts". They changed your game and you come here to spread lies. Meh, so I can't delete, but I can edit eh?BaronJuJu 19:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your edit was too ambiguous and vague. So I corrected it. Jonawiki 19:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, nothing but smear and vauge references to what you think it meant. But as we can plainly see this is about the most we can excpect from you.BaronJuJu 20:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As soon as I am done laughing at this garbage, I would have to say that this has nothing to do with SWG and it needs to be removed immediately and the page locked for now. No neutrality, Personal Attacks and blatant blog thoeries that are based on not one fact. How many times does this kid need to be warned?. BaronJuJu 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Attribution - Living persons - Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it's about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page.[2] This applies to any material related to living persons in any article, talk, user page, or project page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material - Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Attribution, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source." No cite in that section meets the standards specified and much of it is a conjectural interpretation. Skeptack 20:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the contentious material about you WAS sourced in a manner 100% compliant with the guidelines of Attribution. The content is NOT unsourced and it's NOT poorly sourced. It's well sourced. So your citation does not apply. Jonawiki 20:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_Sources - "Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet - Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or comments on blogs, should not be used as sources.". Skeptack 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * *Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it's about a living person* - All of section 4.5 is contentious, about a living person, and provides only forum posts as citation. Skeptack 21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I recommend that write-up on Freeman be dropped for the following reasons:


 * First, he's not notable nor is his involvement notable. According to Notability, "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." Freeman is mentioned in Slashdot, but he is not the "subject" of the article, he is just mentioned in passing. And the heart of his "controversy" is not mentioned, just the beginning of it. Jonawiki also failed to show that "multiple, non-trivial published works" mentioned the Freeman incident.


 * Second, per Biography of living persons > Using The Subject As A Source, it fails the "contentious" test.


 * Third, per Biography of living persons > Reliable Sources, it states "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable, third-party sources, a biography will violate our content policies of No original research and Attribution, and could lead to libel claims." I think that if you could point to non-self-referential sources that talk about the Freeman "controversy", you'd be in clear. But that's not the case here. Magonaritus 02:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good points made, especially considering Wikipedia policy backs this up. I agree with the deletion. Roguegeek (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, fine. I'll drop it. I looked but couldn't find any articles from a reliable source talking about the Freeman controversy. But be warned! If any do arise (which I admit is doubtful), I'll be back here again advocating inclusion again. Jonawiki 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Rumors, NPOV and ATT

 * I think they should be removed. Kotaku didn't "report a rumor" so much as they "received an email and posted part of it, which resulted in a short-lived rumor". There are five claims from that email echoed above (and a sixth at Kotaku, that Smedley was not going to be employed much longer). The title, however, only lists one rumor: SOE loses SWG licese, which didn't last long, didn't generate significant press coverage outside of a few game blogs, SWG forums, and such.
 * Of the references:
 * ...Kotaku.com received the anonymous email and posted it. It wasn't reporting a rumor, but rather was the rumor. And it sets a precedent that basically anyone could send an email to Kotaku, has a chance of it being reported, and then even if it is reported with a rebuttal, as this was, still be used as a "reliable source".
 * ...tentonhammer.com is a very nice blog.
 * ...http://games.slashdot.org did indeed say "SWG will be staying with Sony Online for some time to come." This is used as a reference for the rumor, and for the other four statements included with it.
 * ...http://www.fohguild.org/forums/ Forums should not be used as references.
 * Overall, I feel this section is included to satisfy a desire to "balance" the article with both negative and neutral statements, whereas before this week it was all neutral. Jeff Freeman 03:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoever is adding these nonsensical 'rumor' edits - stop. I've already warned you, and if you keep it up, I will ask an admin to lock the article. Antman -- chat 07:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can find nothing under WP:ATT or WP:NPOV that excludes reporting on rumors that have been covered in the mainstream media. I'm also stunned that you would want to exclude Jedi as controversy. They've been controversial from day one within the game, being the source of flames within the community at every turn. Everything has been exquisitely sourced to sources compliant with WP:ATT which is admirable. Please discuss your concerns within the talk page first before making mass content deletions in an article. Thanks. Magonaritus 13:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rumors and other edits are simply NOT relevant to the article within encyclopedia context. Antman -- chat 19:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will repeat what I just said immediately preceding this latest comment: prove it. WHERE does it say in Wiki guidelines that you should EXCLUDE rumors that comply with Attribution. I think rumors are perfectly acceptable content since  Attribution even states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. So I'm gonna revert your content deletions until we can resolve this on the talk page. Jonawiki 20:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You also deleted the Freeman controversy and "SOE blames Lucas Arts" controvery. They were not rumors, so why did you try to delete them? Jonawiki 20:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Rogue and Antman, I'm waiting for your response.... Jonawiki 20:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I myself can find nothing within the policies that excludes adding content about rumors that can be tracked back to a reliable source per WP:ATT and written in a neutral manner per WP:NPOV.


 * I have found numerous examples of other Wiki articles that mention rumors substantiated and unsubstantiated. They include:


 * Apple_Inc. "Jobs confirmed rumors that...."


 * History_of_Google "There are also rumors of a Google web browser...."


 * Elvis_presley "These rumors have been strongly rejected..."


 * Do a search for the phrase "denied rumors" at en.wikipedia.org on Google ("denied rumors" site:en.wikipedia.org) and you get http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2003-34,GGLD:en&q=%22denied+rumors%22+site%3aen%2ewikipedia%2eorg which lists 43 results of articles within Wiki that use that specific phrase.


 * In conclusion, can someone explain why rumors about SWG should be excluded from the article? If not, can we put them back in? Thanks Magonaritus 03:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe antman suggested in his latest edit that rumors are not notable. According to Notability, "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other." Both rumors meet this definition of notability.


 * In addition, Notability states: "Notability is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"." So just because you feel these rumors are trivial does not mean it should be excluded from the article.


 * Lastly, Notability is a guideline which is not as strong as WP:ATT and WP:NPOV which are official policies. Official policies have more weight than guidelines. These rumors comply with WP:ATT and WP:NPOV. Magonaritus 12:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, they don't have independent sources. Everyone got that rumor from Kotaku.


 * If it's trivial, shouldn't it be moved to trivia? :) Jeff Freeman 13:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the rumors section makes the article look bad. It'd be different if there were tons of them, and SWG was known as "the game with all the rumors about it", but it's not. This just seems like clutter, to me. Jeff Freeman 13:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * By what Wiki criterion does the article look "bad"? I think it looks super sweet. By more objective Wiki policies of ATT and NPOV, it's one part win one part l33t.


 * And it's totally relevant cause remember the 2nd sentence of the article? "There has been no MMORPG that has caused more controversy than Sony Online Entertainment's (SOE) Star Wars Galaxies" according to MMORPG.com. Rumors like these get published by reputable media sources because of the SWG community's eternal haterade for John Smelly at $OE. It's partly because of such rumors that get such media attention like this that leads MMORPG.com to call SWG the most controversial MMO EVAR !!!!1111!! Jonawiki 13:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's just my opinion, not a WikiOpinion. I think it's just a bit of clutter.


 * Incidentally, that quote is from an editorial. It's obviously Kevin Tierney's opinion, or maybe just a bit of hyperbole to make the article more interesting. It's not a "fact" from a reliable source. It's an opinion from an editorial written by a former SWG player: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/903665#903665


 * And no offense to mmorpg.com, but they aren't exactly one of the heavyweight gamesites on the net...

http://mythicalblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/traffic_rank.png


 * UO players back when GM Darwin was creating and selling stuff on eBay, rumors of GM/volunteer hot tub parties and sex-based-promotions within the program, refusal to put in a PvP switch was controversial, then putting in a non-PvP mirror, and on and on, might find that 10-year-old MMO has generated more controversy than SWG. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skeptack

Following up on Magonaritus' idea of using Google to search Wiki, here are some more Wikipedia articles that discuss rumors and conspiracies:
 * http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=CNDB,CNDB:2006-09,CNDB:en&q=conspiracy+unfounded+site%3Aen%2Ewikipedia%2Eorg ("unfounded conspiracy") - 10 results
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=CNDB%2CCNDB%3A2006-09%2CCNDB%3Aen&q=%22confirmed+rumors%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org ("confirmed rumors") - american spelling - 25 results
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=CNDB%2CCNDB%3A2006-09%2CCNDB%3Aen&q=%22confirmed+rumours%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org ("confirmed rumours") - british spelling - 13 results
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=CNDB%2CCNDB%3A2006-09%2CCNDB%3Aen&q=%22unfounded+rumors%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org ("unfounded rumors")- american spelling - 20 results
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=CNDB%2CCNDB%3A2006-09%2CCNDB%3Aen&q=%22unfounded+rumours%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org ("unfounded rumours") - british spelling - 13 results
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=CNDB%2CCNDB%3A2006-09%2CCNDB%3Aen&q=%22neither+confirm+nor+deny%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org ("neither confirm nor deny")
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=CNDB%2CCNDB%3A2006-09%2CCNDB%3Aen&q=%22wild+rumors%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org ("wild rumors") - american spelling - 29 results
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=CNDB%2CCNDB%3A2006-09%2CCNDB%3Aen&q=%22wild+rumours%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org ("wild rumours" - british spelling) - 18 results
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=CNDB%2CCNDB%3A2006-09%2CCNDB%3Aen&q=%22rejected+the+conspiracy%22+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org ("rejected the conspiracy") - 1 result

So now that we've established that many many Wiki articles are talking about rumors, what's the problem again? Jonawiki 13:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Rumors - blogs as a reliable source

 * Oh, also, this is incorrect: "The New York Post reported on a rumor". That was blogs.nypost.com - there's a HUGE difference. Seriously. Jeff Freeman 15:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Vitka is a paid journalist for the New York Post. It's not a personal blog of some random joe using a free community feature on nypost.com. It's his column, but to make it more "hip", it's called a blog. But it's all in an official capacity with editorial overview which makes it WP:RS. See http://kotaku.com/gaming/new-york-post/new-york-posts-new-game-blog-229833.php or http://blogs.nypost.com/pgr/ or http://www.mmognation.com/2007/01/20/the-post-stars-posting-rips-swg-a-new-one/


 * I know that, part of the editorial oversight is deciding what to print in the NY post, and what's better as a blog post. Things posted to blogs.nypost.com are not "Reported by the NY Post". The issue isn't with citing it as a source, but with mis-attributing the source. There is a New York Post, and even they wouldn't just post an email like that. On the blogs, they tend to behave a bit more like... bloggers. Jeff Freeman 20:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your blog concern is 100% moot. Check out Attribution/FAQ, it states:


 * Are weblogs reliable sources? In most cases, no. Most weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. Information from a blog may be usable in an article about that blog or blogger under the self-publication provision of WP:ATT. Weblog material written by well-known professional researchers writing within their field, or well-known professional journalists, may be acceptable, especially if hosted by a university or employer (a typical example is Language Log, which is already cited in several articles, e.g. Snowclone, Drudge Report).


 * Per Wiki policy, the NYPost blog from the reporter Vitka is in 100% compliance with Wiki policy of WP:ATT. Magonaritus 01:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is with mis-attributing the source. Jeff Freeman 04:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Vitka is paid by NYPost as a journalist. Whether he posts on blogs.nypost.com or www.nypost.com/entertainment/entertainment.html is irrelevant. He is a paid employee of NYPost. He can't write whatever he wants. It's not his personal vanity blog where he can talk about that cute story when his dog pooped on his carpet. He discusses games and only games in his "blog". There is editorial oversight over what he writes on his "blog". So I see nothing wrong with saying that the NYPost reported the rumor. In this context, who cares if it was reported in an editorial or a weekly column or a special feature or as front page news or as a "blog"? It's all the NYPost in every case. Jonawiki 16:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I care. "The New York Post" is a tabloid newspaper. "Blogs.nypost.com" is an blog-style website owned by the NY post, but is not "the NY Post". Again, part of the editorial oversight exercised is to determine appropriate venues for publication. Using the editorial oversight as justification for the reference while ignoring the function of the editorial oversight is intellectually dishonest. Either way, what's the harm in clarifying what actually happened: that an anonymous email was received and posted on blog.nypost.com; rather than saying "The NY Post reported"?


 * Alright, apparently a moot point now, but there's a bit too much lawyering on this talk page. Frequently we've been arguing the points of wiki policy, when actually reading what the source says and applying a reasonably degree of common sense, would reveal the reference doesn't support the assertion regardless. Jeff Freeman 02:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Bioware speculation/rumor

 * I say remove the BIOWARE rumor as well. It has nothing to do with this (SWG). Either that or move it to the Bioware page under their rumor section, or developments to watch or whatever you want to call it. BaronJuJu 20:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's relevance to SWG is that it's unclear at this time, according to the article that provides this information, if the launch of a Bioware Star Wars MMO will result in the simultaneous sunset of Star Wars Galaxies. Or both may co-exist. Jonawiki 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Read WP:NOT.
 * Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox
 * Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, or social networking site
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball
 * Antman -- chat 22:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The Bioware rumor is pretty weak. I don't think it's worth mentioning as its relevancy to SWG is not well established at this point. Now, if it becomes public that Bioware is working on a Windows-based MMORPG for Star Wars, then that'll be a different story. As such, I agree, we should delete the Bioware sub-section for now. Magonaritus 04:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Rumors vs speculation
This Kotaku rumor is a year old. http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/sony/shakeup-at-sony-online-entertainment-162338.php - It also says ''"Place has been falling apart for a while," writes our mole. "Smedley is not long in his job."''. But it's 2007 and he's still there, and SOE still runs SWG. The other cite is tentonhammer's "With industry buzz and rumors flying that SOE may not renew its license with LucasArts in early 2006." It is now 2007. I realize things don't have to be true, as long as they are cited, but doesn't this defy common sense? Jeff Freeman 04:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Controversies & rumors" section is mainly about controversies and rumors that took place in the past. There's no requirement that the controversy or rumor be currently on-going in order to meet Wiki standards of WP:ATT or WP:NPOV or WP:NOTE. The section is not titled "Current Rumors". In that light, do you still have a concern about the currentness of the rumor? Magonaritus 04:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The mix-n-match of more recent with former (and controversies with rumors) confused me, but I guess as time passes, they'll all be former. The inclusion of "an anonymous email was sent to Kotuka which claimed some things that SOE and LEC denied, and which later turned out to be untrue" still strikes me as a weird thing to include. Jeff Freeman 04:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no response needed to any of this. Information that can not be verified is non-encyclopedic information. A rumor, in nature, is unverifiable information. Therefore, rumors are not allowed in these articles. It doesn't matter if other articles don't follow this policy. I'm only caring about what goes here right now. If you have a problem with this, I suggest you get an admin over here to explain it. Rumors are being deleted. Roguegeek (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The big key word here is verifiability. Things here need to be exactly that. A reference pointing to the rumors is not verifying a rumor. If there is a true source to the info, then the information wouldn't be a rumor anymore. Roguegeek (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the policy that puts an end to this issue as taken directly from WP:NOT:


 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball


 * Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis.

I understand how newer editors have difficulty dealing with understanding of these policies, but that's still not an excuse to repetitively revert edits that remove invalid content. Please stop doing this immediately. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball does not apply to rumors, it applies to SPECULATION of future events that have yet to occur or not occur i.e. an editor writes "At some point in the future, SWG will probably be nominated into the Gaming Hall of Shame" but then doesn't back it up with a source.


 * Rumors many times have nothing to do with speculating about what will happen. Many times, rumors are about things that ARE. Then people verify or deny them. Like SOE employees CURRENTLY think there's an anti-SWG cabal. It has nothing to do with speculating that an anti-SWG cabal WILL exist in the future. It either exists now or it doesn't.


 * Even if you accept all rumors as speculations (which they aren't), your crystal ball policy also says that "it IS appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur... provided that discussion is properly referenced." So if NY Times reported in an article that gaming experts argued over the speculation that SWG will be nominated into the Gaming Hall of Shame, then it IS OK according to the policy you quoted to discuss this speculation. You need to read things more carefully.


 * So I invite you to tell us all what Wiki policy or guideline prevents editors from including rumors that were denied or verified and reported in the press (aka ATT-compliant) and written in a neutral manner (aka NPOV-compliant).


 * Bring in an admin or third opinion or arbiter, I don't care. I'm pretty sure that you'll be proven very quickly wrong by the real experts on Wiki policy.


 * Until then, consider your content deletion... reverted. Jonawiki 19:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the blog you referenced, that would be "Like SWG players CURRENTLY think SOE employees think there's an anti-SWG cabal"? Not that it matters on this page - but if you're going to use that post as a reference in the article, be sure not to jump to a conclusions. Jeff Freeman 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No idea what you just said. Please rephrase. Jonawiki 21:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the reference you provided: It says an email from a SWG player claimed that SOE devs think there is a cabal. That isn't evidence SOE devs think there is a cabal. That is evidence that a SWG player thinks the SOE devs believe there is a cabal. You're jumping to the conclusion that the SWG player is correct, and using his email as "evidence" that he is correct. The only evidence there is that a SWG player thinks SWG devs believe there is a cabal. Make sense? Jeff Freeman 04:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever the official case is, keep in mind you are not the only editor of this article and right now, consensus is going against you. Work with people here and keep in mind that you are about to break 3RR yet again. Roguegeek (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think consensus is against him. It looks more like 2v2 at this point. Reverted. Magonaritus 00:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's more like 4-2 now. Wait, considering that there's a pretty clear case of sock puppet violations going on between Jonawiki and Magonaritus (the report and evidence can be found here), let's make that count now 4-1. We can remove all of the poorly sources and completely unsourced rumors now I think . Roguegeek (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As this discussion is getting quite long and I feel the issue should be settled, I am providing my comments on this issue. First, the first rumor has already passed and the SOE President has not been fired, the game is still going strong and LucasArts has renewed this lisence. The whole inclusion of the rumor looks more like trying to spread something rather than reporting on a certain aspect of the game itself. Also, the second rumor seems like nonsense and I'm not quite sure how much the rumor helps contribute to the article itself. Yes, SWG is a highly criticized game but I feel the idea of some anti-SWG cabal is complete nonsense. It just to me doesn't seem like it's adding much to the article. I know both rumors are sourced however is the inclusion of these two rumors going to bring the article any closer to GA or FA status? Is the not including these two rumors going to hurt the article bringing it further from GA or FA status? I do not see how the rumors are entirely going to help the article and it seems if you use common sense both articles seem like nonsense now that the incidents have passed.   Orfen    User Talk |  Contribs 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point. The point is that SWG is controversial. The way George Bush, whether you love him or hate him, everyone admits that he's a controversial figure. There's a lot of animosity stirred up. So if you correctly label something as controversial, like SWG, you have to support it with the facts. These 2 rumors speak to the controversial nature of SWG that crap like that happens to it. So when people ask "prove to me that SWG is so controversial", you have no choice but to point to these 2 rumors as 2 of many examples of its controversial nature.


 * Also, I'm disappointed in your lack of using any Wiki policies to support your point. Your reasoning should be based on objective Wiki policies, it shouldn't be based on what comes out of your a-- (excuse my bluntness). Jonawiki 13:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * While I do understand your disappointment, I do not see a reason these rumors should be included. I also do take your point and I in no way said SWG is not controversial. It is. And these two rumors as examples of it's controvesial nature? Hardly. There are plenty of better ones out there and the two just do not make any sense. The information is sourced however the information is entering the realm of making completely no sense that it could be vandalism. While the first rumor could be hoax as it is speculative nature and proven false and I'm not quite sure I could say the article is a reliable source. Also, is there any evidence to suggest an anti-SWG cabal? It is sourced as saying some employees feel there may be one however is there any evidence to suggest there is one? There may be a lot of criticism and controversy but is that grounds for saying there is an anti-SWG cabal? Another possible hoax. I apologize for the lack of Wiki policies during my first arguement, but I assure you, I did not miss the point. I am currently playing the game and my character has been active for over 3 years, I am no stranger to the controversy surrounding the game.   Orfen    User Talk |  Contribs 02:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, the Rumor sections needs to go. One has been proven blatantly false (The game is still here) and the other is an unverified email and most likely a hoax.BaronJuJu 08:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)