Talk:Grosses messer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Weaponry task force

[edit] Persistent insertion of a commercial link by Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg

(Moved from WP:AN/I)

On the Grosses messer page, WP contributor Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg persists in adding an external link (Example of a traditional grosses messer) that feeds into an online catalogue page, complete with ordering instructions and prices, maintained by a maker and vendor of reproduction swords. His reason? Because, he says, "...in a search for a picture of the weapon. I was unsure about the legal status of the photo so I added the whole link." When warned (on my talk page) that adding blatant commmercial links to a WP article appears to violate WP:EL policy #4, he replied, "it was the only picture of the weapon available and thus gives an adaquate reason not to follow it." He further insists he has no commercial or other interest in such a link but is justified in inserting it, "since a picture of the weapon would be helpful to the article." To prevent further acts of what might be considered vandalism, i.e., willful violations of WP:EL policies, and after encountering three reinsertions of the commercial link by Al-Silverburg on December 13th, it seems the matter should be referred to cooler heads at the WP Administrator level. Could a decision be made whether persistent insertions of purely commercial links are considered vandalism, or whether such links are justified because a contributor believes they would "be helpful to the article" and he says "it was the only picture of the weapon available"? Thanks, Jack Bethune 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

In general, I would agree with you, Jack: commercial links should be avoided. However, that is a pretty nice picture on that other site, which unfortunately we can't simply take and move over here. WP:EL says commercial links should be generally avoided, but this might be one of the acceptable exceptions to the rule. Moshe, please weigh in: are you at all associated with that web site? JDoorjam Talk 04:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have already told Jack I had never even heard of the site until I googled "Grosses Messer" looking for a picture, since I was unsure of the legal status of it I decided just to add the entire link. I will also mention that I did not appreciate how Jack began our interaction by immediately accusing me of link spamming which was not only a violation of good faith but was also completly unwarranted. I also attempted to explain my position by stating that guidelines may at times be ignored if their is good reason which in this case there was. I will admit that my reaction has not been appropriate at every turn but I feel it was almost justified considering such incivility on such a mundane detail.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You should probably both apologize to one another for letting this get heated and not making use of the grosses messer talk page, where other passers by might have opinions on the value of the link. I mean, come on, guys. This is an argument over whether to include a relatively non-controversial external link at the bottom of a start-class article. This should not have reached the point where admin intervention was requested, with both of you an edit away from a WP:3RR violation.

It's my opinion that the link adds value to the article by showing still images of the grosses messer which, so far, we do not have a free-use image of. I think the value of the link outweighs the guideline suggesting the avoidance of commercial links. Without getting into an edit war, and letting any previous comments made in haste be forgotten, let's talk about the value of this link. Jack, do you think that the link adds value, setting aside momentarily the general guideline against commercial links? If not, why not? JDoorjam Talk 06:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We can all agree that an image adds significant benefit to an otherwise unillustrated article. In addition, we can certainly all agree that commercial links should be avoided, per WP policy, unless (a) the image adds a significant benefit to the article, and (b) there are no other illustrations available. While there is no dispute about (a), or apparent benefits, the real question seems to be (b), i.e, whether there are no other illustrations available. For this topic, that clearly does not seem to be the case. Images of the Medieval weapon known as the grosses Messer are not common, but they do exist in period illustrations from Albrecht Dürer's Fechtbuch, which is available online here [1] and, in detail, here [2]. Another online source illustrates this weapon in combat here [3]. These Medieval-period illustrations now being offered on other websites are probably in the public domain, and any one of them would be preferable to the commercial links in the currect Wikipedia article, which now consist of not only a repro manufacturer's catalogue page but also his full-length promotional commercial. Wikipedia can do better than that, don't you agree? Jack Bethune 18:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)