Talk:MVDDS dispute/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Adding references

I am adding them as we speak. Macrhino 20:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna upload a new version in a bit which makes the bibliography follow the template:reflist form. This will also make the inline citations work. nadav 20:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral language

I really don't want to have to put an Template:POV tag on this article. Text should not be implicitly against Northpoint. For example:

In order to secure the licenses without auction, Northpoint hired a series of lobbying companies (Podesta Mattoon, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, Daine Allbaugh, Livingston Group) to get congress to force the FCC chairman's hand.[1] MDS America on the other hand, was willing to go to auction and hired Alston & Bird to lobby against this. Their head lobbyist was Ex Senate majority leader Sen. Robert Dole.

is not acceptable. Each firm had its own agenda. Northpoint was also in a pitched lobbying battle with the massive lobbying power of the DBS companies. nadav 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think what is written here is "against or for" anyone. Northpoint's publically stated goal was to have the spectrum given to them by the FCC without auction. When FCC chairman Powell decided to have auctions, actually telling Kirkpatrick that Federal law prevewnted any decision but that one, Northpoint very publically lobbied Congress and gave out press releases stating their goal, to include an amendment to force the FCC to grant them spectrum. Even Sen. Frist wrote against this. It is neither negative nor positive. It is simply what Northpoint wanted. MDSA was willling to participate in auctions and did not think Northpoint should unilaterally be given this public resourse. How is that POV? This is simply factual. Unless one just assumes that getting the licenses without auction is bad. Northpoint certainly did not think so and the references are clear on that. They felt they were justified in asking for this. See here: http://www.sbca.com/government/spectrum.htm http://www.sbca.com/PublicAffairsdocs/092503_FT.pdf

regards 21:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.5.42 (talk • contribs)

I am familiar with the facts (though the scienceblog link didn't work in my browser and, if it's a blog, is not OK. The relevant material should probably be in the Post article in any case). The problem is the presentation. (WP:NPOV is relevant here) It is already stated in the article that Northpoint invested a lot in lobbying, "force the FCC chairman's hand" is loaded language, and the comparison to MDS's angelic behavior is not of much relevance to a section dealing with Northpoint's dealings with the FCC. As the DevX and WSJ articles indicate, a sympathetic reading of the affair was that Northpoint was just trying to level the playing field with the DBS companies. An opposing view would be that Northpoint was just trying to get something for nothing. We have to steer between these two viewpoints, and I think text you inserted paints the situation in the latter way. nadav 22:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

DBS companies

There should probably be more content about the DBS companies' angle, lobbying efforts, and court cases. nadav 23:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am now trying to learn about the ORBIT Act, DBS Auction Order, and Northpoint and Compass v. FCC case. Apparantly, this case was one the few successes Northpoint had, since it anulled the FCC's interpretation of the ORBIT act that it used for its DBS Auction Order. Does anyone know what practical effect this case had? And how does it reconcile with Northpoint v. FCC, which said ORBIT does not bar a spectrum auction? Right now I'm still confused about this. nadav 01:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

MDS America

The MDS America article should link to this article somewhere. Perhaps one of your more familiar with the subject could find an appropriate spot? Russeasby 19:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the article should be merged completely, now that MDS International has been deleted. No secondary source I found mentions the company outside the context of the Northlight story. nadav 19:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Copying reasoning from talk:MDS America: Now that the MDS International article has become a redirect to MVDDS dispute, I think it is only proper that this page be too. No secondary source I found about the company, and I have done an extensive review in the course of the MDSI debate and in writing MVDDS dispute, has mentioned the company outside the context of the Northpoint Technology story. Moreover, all the sources indicated MDS America was the North American licensee of MDS International. Representatives of MDSA say the status has changed, and the contempt of court order does indicate the companies are no longer on friendly terms. However, I still haven't seen anything indicating that the hypercable technology is not sold outside the US by MDS International. Indeed, see SCTV's news release (uploaded 01-Feb-2007). nadav 19:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely, but since I didnt see a deletion tag on the MDSA article(didnt look at talk I guess) I was not sure if this was the course being taken. Russeasby 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Where should discussion of this proposal take place? This talk page, or the MDSA one?
Let's do it here, since the templates point to this page. I'll copy the comments about the merge here. nadav 22:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Bhimaji 20:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


The SCTV release is an old one. I am talking to SCTV to release another. SCTV opted not to buy the MDSI system for the reasons already discussed. Look at the press relese. It is from 2001. Then look at the contempt order. It states that MDSI is required to send a letter written by MDSA to SCTV telling SCTV that they can buy from MDSA because there is no contract between SCTV and MDSI 76.109.17.236 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well. Ignore the mention to SCTV. I don't see a date on the press release, but the matter is unimportant. The main arguments are the other ones. nadav 22:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The relevance of spectrum ownership

I do think that it's important to consider the relevance of spectrum ownership. Owning radio spectrum gives you an immense amount of control and influence as to which services are going to be offered, and where. I think that the marketplace and public policy impact of controlling spectrum across about 1/3 of the US by surface area (and owner of the largest number of DMAs) should be sufficient to make a company notable. If the article reads too much like a vanity article, then that's something that should be fixed. Russeasby, can you identify which parts you feel are inappropriate? Bhimaji 00:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to thank you for improving the neutrality of MDS America. Concerning notability, the criterion at WP:CORP is as follows:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be attributable.

My opinion is that the company has only received notice in the sources as part of the DBS/FCC/Northpoint story over the licensing of MVDDS. I have yet to see any article that goes into any depth about the company for its own sake. nadav 01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding - and I'm sure that somebody higher up will correct me if I'm wrong - was that MDS America was founded with the primary intention of providing MVDDS services to the US market. MDS America's involvement was not merely that of a bystander or of somebody sitting around waiting. MDSA was an active participant in the technical, regulatory and political landscape of MVDDS. We got a lot of press during the lead up to the auction. Once a spectrum auction ends, the next stage is a quiet, technical one. We're working on getting our equipment from the prototype stage to the deployment stage. MDSA isn't a public company - we don't have to manufacture news to keep the stock market happy.
I think it's inaccurate to say that we "only received notice in the sources as part of the...story"; I think a more accurate statement is that we received notice because of our involvement in the story, and our shaping of the story. Kirk, the CEO, testified before Congress on the matter. Our legal bills were, I believe, well into the millions. The press didn't cover us as 'talking heads' or for 'industry commentary.' They covered us because we were significant principals in this story.
A company is never really written about "for its own sake"; it is written about because of what it has done, is doing, or will do. MDS America was heavily written about while they were doing significant and notable activities related to MVDDS licensing. Right now, we're in the quiet period where we truly aren't doing anything worthy of (American) press coverage. Every respin of a printed circuit board is not 'notable' even if the end result will be.
(We are most definitely doing other things, but they're exclusively in international markets right now. In the US, MVDDS is really the only service we can offer. SCTV is one of our projects, but the others have not reached the stage where they are definite enough that I can talk about them, or that MDSA can issue press releases)
I guess my real question is: How many different fields do we need to be notable in? It is an objective fact that we had significant and direct involvement in notable events. It is an objective fact that we own spectrum that is notable - three congressional bills and two official White House policy statements indicate that somebody thinks MVDDS matters.
Our actions, and the level of publicity surrounding them, are really quite normal for the industry. When T-Mobile USA decided on their 3G network design, there was a flurry of publicity. Then, there was quiet. Building a network just doesn't get you the press's interest. When they bought spectrum at auction, another flurry of publicity. Then quiet. The next publicity will be when you can use the network.
I think it's inappropriate to consider MDS America to be a non-notable company simply because our current activities are quiet R&D. We were notable in the domain in which we intended to be notable; we have a legal FCC requirement to have deployment started in 2009. The secondary-source coverage of our company is precisely as would be expected in this industry.
Bhimaji 03:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll on merging MDS America

Representatives and employees of MDS America should make sure to read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before participating. Note that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus is determined based on the arguments given. nadav 22:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For

  • Merge based on my reasoning above. nadav 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Also, there is basically no useful content at MDS America that is not already at MVDDS or at this article. nadav 22:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Per Nadav1 and discussion at the AFD for MDSI [1]. MDS America is not notable in its own right currently, though much of the information is useful at MVDDS. Much of this article which is not MVDDS dispute related is nothing more then a vanity article created by employees of MDSA. Russeasby 23:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge per User:Nadav1 and the MDSI AfD discussion. The activities of MDS America since they received their spectrum in early 2004 seem to be poorly documented in the press. While we are waiting for that information to be gathered I think this merge is the right thing to do. This means MDS America will turn into a redirect for now to MVDDS dispute. If it gets better-documented later, it could go back to being a freestanding article and we will still have the complete article history. (Editors can still refer back to all the past versions of the article). EdJohnston 19:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Ed, I think this is a significant mis-characterization of the situation. MDS America's activities in the development of our US MVDDS system are not documented because we have made the decision to not publicize them before deployment. Our public policy related activities were significant and notable. Our auction purchase of MVDDS licenses was notable. There is a legal obligation to deploy within 5 years of the auction; we're not allowed to just sit around and do nothing. I can't think of any product other than the iPhone that can generate years of press coverage before the product is available. We aren't interested in putting out public milestones explaining where we are in our system development so that our competitors can base their marketing strategies around our schedule.
If a large, multi-year construction project wasn't covered by the press while they were just plodding along quietly doing stuff, would it be deleted from Wikipedia until something exciting enough for the press to talk about happened?
It's not like there's a question about whether MDS America is just going to go away without doing anything - it is a notable, objective fact that we own these assets. The spectrum isn't going to just go away. Wikipedia has many articles on companies that don't exist anymore; it's obvious that current press coverage is not demanded when it would be illogical to expect it. Anybody in the telecoms industry will be able to confirm for you that a company that owns significant spectrum is guaranteed to do something notable merely by owning that asset.
Bhimaji 20:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: There are many COI SPAs (partial list posted in MDS International section on WP:COI/N) cluttering these pages with their edits and posts. — Athaenara 23:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to this mess. I've been asking the MDS America-affiliated people to get accounts so that this can be a bit clearer to read. I think the IPs are fairly evenly spread between MDSA people and people in France, most of whom appear to work for MDS International. On behalf of whichever anonymous MDSA people have made this discussion so hard to read, I apologize. I find it very frustrating, but I think a lot of them aren't really familiar with Wikipedia.
Do you have the time to take part in some of the discussions? I would very much appreciate it if you could weigh in on some of my questions re: confidential R&D. As it stands now, it seems like MDSA is being thought of as no longer notable primarily because we've chosen not to publicize every step of our R&D. Our acquisition and ownership of the spectrum was notable; our requirement to deploy our system by 2009 is a matter of public record.
To give an analogy, NASA designs a space probe, and gets it ready for launch. The press covers it, interviews the scientists, and so on. It launches, and they cover that. Then, we wait a long time as it goes through space. The press generally doesn't care. It arrives somewhere interesting, and the press goes wild again.
In the intervening period, I would argue that it's still notable, since something is happening, even if it's not doing anything the press cares about. I think this analogy is a fairly accurate description of what is going on at MDS America. If I'm really off-base here, I would appreciate it if you could explain where I'm going wrong with my understanding.
(Since you're new to this discussion, I'll make sure I declare that I am an MDS America employee. I have tried to make sure people were aware of that; I've also been working on making the MDSA article sound less like a press release. I am a new person at MDSA, so I wasn't around when all these interesting legal battles were going on. I just build communications equipment.)
Bhimaji 23:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not that MDS America is not notable per se. My belief, based on all the research its taken me to put together this article, is that all the attention MDS America has received was merely a consequence of the controversies surrounding the FCC licensing of MVDDS and the related Northpoint suit. There were also quite a few articles that mentioned that MDSA was a licensee of MDS International, yet I still supported making MDSI a redirect for similar reasons.
Regarding plans for the MVDDS technology for 2009: as you admit, not much information is available. The public has not been informed about the preparations. Therefore, I think Wikipedia is not a crystal ball applies. This is different from the NASA example you cite, since NASA (which by the way has many has books devoted soley to the organization) published the plans for the probe's flight. Thus there is material to put into an article about the probe beyond merely its launch. nadav 01:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Here is what WP:CRYSTAL says: "By comparison, the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." In our case, this indicates that though you may be required by law to implement MVDDS (just as the elections are required to take place), nothing verifiable has been written about your preparations for the implementaiont. This is not a critique: I fully understand the need for secrecy. But it does regretably indicate that there is not enough information to include in article about your company beyond what already appears here and at MVDDS. nadav 01:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
One of the differences between this situation and the 2016 elections is that we actually know who will be implementing MVDDS. If they had already officially put names on the ballot for the 2016 elections, I would strongly argue for those people to have entries on Wikipedia. A [classmate of mine] has already announced his [campaign planks], but I don't think he's really notable enough to deserve an entry.
Out of curiousity I looked, and the 2024 Summer Olympics already have an entry on Wikipedia. It looks like cities are already spending money on their bids. There isn't an article on the 2028 Summer Olympics yet, but plans are already getting press coverage [2] [3] [4]
There is already formal interest in the 2032 Summer Olympics [5] and rumors [6] [7]
It looks like they're going to have to update the crystal ball policy's examples surprisingly soon :)
To try to get a feel for what normal Wikipedia policy is like, I've been randomly clicking on stub articles. João Infante is a Portugese explorer who is famous for accompanying somebody else. James Kingston Tuckey led one failed expedition; would it be appropriate to redirect his entry to one that talks about his expedition? Eric Marshall went with Ernest Shackleton on the Nimrod Expedition but hasn't done anything else it seems.


I took a brief look at the immense number of. The only thing the New York, Newfoundland and London Telegraph Company did that was notable was be part of a series of conglomerations that did something notable. BitsYU and Beocity are Serbian ISPs. Advanced Digital Radio Testing Service is merely a division of Motorola. HighTech Information System manufactures graphics cards using ATi chipsets.
I do like the article on the MVDDS dispute. I think it explains a lot of very good background about what happened and is very valuable. I just think that it's an incorrect application of Wikipedia's policies to merge an active, operating corporation's article into an article about a historical dispute.
Bhimaji 18:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here, indeed you could go through WP and find tons of articles to back up your assertation that MDSA deserves an article to itsself. But generally this is not a good argument. This article needs to stand on its own feet. Russeasby 18:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's quite possible that the items I pointed out were against WP policy. I looked through them with an eye to understanding how the policies were actually implemented, sort of like the way that judges cite prior cases.
I believe that my disagreement is one of interpretation of rules, which is why I felt examples were appropriate.
Bhimaji 18:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, for a community like Wikipedia with so many contributors in so many places, the idea of precedent cannot work, So it's not useful to point out a bad article and call it a justification. I have nominated the Serbian ISPs for speedy deletion since they don't assert notability, as required by WP:CSD. nadav 18:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand. I prefer the German legal system, where the written law is all that there is. Unfortunately, German laws are very, very verbose.
Thanks for nominating them for deletion; I considered doing that but opted not to since I'm a newbie here.
And this will be my last comment in this thread since it's getting too close to the edge of my screen. :)
Bhimaji 18:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to un-indent if the discussion gets too close to the edge of your screen. What you should more realistically worry about is that the interest of the topic has been exhausted. I think that User:Nadav1 has quite aptly summarized the policy in the area of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Since the topic of the MVDDS dispute has attracted a lot of attention, it's likely it will enjoy the full rigor of the official Wikipedia standards, even though there are many dusty corners where the standards have not yet been enforced. If you see undesirable stuff happening in the dusty corners, you are welcome to propose correction, for instance through WP:AFD. EdJohnston 18:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Against

  • Disagree MDS AMERICA EMPLOYEE It is obvious from FCC that MDS Operations and MDS America control roughly one third of the MVDDS spectrum in the United States. That alone makes them notable and more notable than an obscure French company. There was considerable debate in the 98-206 docket [8] as to whether MDS Operations would be held to Common Carrier Standards.

Here are references to MDSA outside of this dispute:
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=7947
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BMD/is_81_8/ai_85180112

76.109.17.236 21:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

    • The dbstalk link is not really a reliable source. In any case, it concerns the dispute with the DBS satellites over MVDDS, which should be part of this article. The Communications Today link is also about the dispute. nadav 01:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree Recent MDS America Employee, joined after all the legal stuff with MDSi had ended. One of the things that really convinced me to join MDS America was the amount of spectrum involved - in the North America wireless market, spectrum is king. Owning spectrum is, IMHO, what makes you a real player in the market. Bhimaji 23:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • As WP:COI suggests, please identify yourself if you have an interest in MDSA. Personally, I would also prefer if all participants had a registered username. nadav 22:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll ask around at the office and see if I can find out who's not registered, and ask them to register. Bhimaji 23:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Actually, it's not essential to have a logged-in name, but anyone who has an affiliation, if he declares it, it would tend to deflect any concerns about conflict of interest. You don't have to reveal your real-life identify, just whether you have an affiliation with one of the interested parties. We will carefully listen to your arguments and suggestions in any case. If you, in addition, have a logged-in name, that would help us in communicating with you, because it is often felt it is not worthwhile to leave User_talk messages for IPs, because they won't check them. EdJohnston 01:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I've just received a request from User:nadav1 to close this straw poll. No admin has the right to close a poll as a poll is a survey (a measuring tool) which determines the current state of a situation, with respect to consensus. It doesn't form consensus. It merely measures it. The only exception is when an admin sees a consensus has been reached- which not the case here.

That said, personally speaking, the merge option sounds appropriate as both articles' content overlap (see Merging). Another important thing, is that due to my experience as a wikipedian, i personally see more valid arguments being said by the merge voters than by the other side. However, admins can only be decisive in a deletion process and never in a poll straw where no consensus has been reached. Polls are not binding and no policy governs them. I'd therefore suggest one of the following available options:

  1. The WP:AfD can be the solution. According to the arguments given an admin can either decide to delete an article, keep it (w/ an open possibility of a merge but you'll come back here again to discuss it), or merge it. This is a risky process for both parties but it is up to you to decide.
  2. Lengthen the time of this poll straw until a consensus be reached.
  3. Keep stuff as it is.
  4. For MDS International, if someone is not happy they can simply re-list it at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Still the same game

Poor Wikipedia Admin's! after removing MDSinternational and changing by MVDDS Dispute, you build clear and reliable info and sources but again you start another but still the same battle against the same guys: Machrino alias Mr Kirpatrick the CEO of MDSAMERICA (see Whois ) Or from Kirpatrick from home In Palm City see the IP adress location: IP address & IP location (76.109.17.236):

IP address info: IP address: 76.109.17.236 (copy) IP country: United States IP Address state: IP Address city: Palm City IP latitude: 27.118799 IP longitude: -80.366600 ISP: Comcast Cable Organization: Comcast Cable

You never can obtain neutrality and you never can have the right with no lies or truncated informations with this peoples.~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.206.63.250 (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Jean Claude, If you read carefully, you'll note that the user signing themselves with the IP 76.109.17.236 identified him or herself as an MDSA employee. I note that you don't seem to have identified your conflict of interest, or even signed your message - it had to be auto-signed by a bot. Just to clarify, I am not Kirk, though he is the CEO of my current employer. If anybody other than Jean Claude wishes me to prove this, I can oblige. Bhimaji 12:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

All that is asked is for people to state if they have an outside interest in the matter. As Ed said above, we don't need to know names and I ask Mr Kirpatrick [meant Mr. DuCasse. sorry](if it is indeed him) not to start snooping into people's IP addresses for no reason. nadav 17:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ed I reverted another vandal edit from 83.206.63.250 and a sockpuppet of jeanclauduc. I reverted to Nadav's last version. As well there is an addition to MDS America Talk page that purports to be from Bernard Picot, the Ex-CEO of Rapidwave Inc which no longer exists. MR.PICOT knows nothing about this and after reading it claims it was written by Mr. Ducasse. Maybe people start to see what we are up against. 76.109.17.236 09:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


Editing talk Page

I have reverted the above comments after they were altered by [83.206.63.250] 76.109.17.236 21:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why again MDSAmerica add new lies on this page?

If you are the "I am not Kirk, though he is the CEO of my current employer" You do not know any you are another Slave no more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.206.63.250 (talk • contribs)

MDS America in 2001-2003

In a thread above, nadav wrote:

"It's not that MDS America is not notable per se."
[...]
"This is not a critique: I fully understand the need for secrecy. But it does regretably indicate that there is not enough information to include in article about your company beyond what already appears here and at MVDDS."

I'd like to make sure I understand what you were arguing. Is it your position that:

MDS America's legal and regulatory activities in 2001-2003 were covered by enough secondary sources to meet theWP:NOT requirement for secondary sourcing
Press coverage has pretty much stopped since then, so there are not enough secondary sources to satisfy WP:NOT

(We're starting from the same rules and the same facts; I'd like to figure out where our opinions part ways.)

Bhimaji 19:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. I think I've been pretty clear above. I said that there is not enough material to justify a free standing article about MDS America beyond the already existing MVDDS and MVDDS dispute articles. Hence there should be a merge. Once MDS America starts releasing more information about its projects and preparations, and these things are reported in publications, then we can undo the merge. nadav 19:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The real question, I think, is whether MDS America was notable in the 2001-2003 timeframe; I didn't think that refactoring some (but not all) information into two separate articles would make a company no longer notable. Bhimaji 20:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I was't the one that brought up notability. Notability is usually a standard for determining whether a company deserves treatment at all on Wikipedia. It's bearing on merge discussions is more limited. I'm starting to tire of this because it looks like we are starting to rehash older arguments. I suggest we wait a bit to see if any other established editors want to join in. Afterwards, in two days or so, we can ask a neutral third party (preferably an admin) to close this dicussion. nadav 20:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Alternatively, we can refer this to the mediation committee or the informal Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. nadav 20:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I brought up notability because notability is generally permanent, and "If a topic has multiple independent reliable published sources, this is not changed by the frequency of coverage decreasing."
WP:CORP is "a tool to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise) is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article." Clearly, virtually every significant Wikipedia article includes references to people, places or events that are incidental to the subject of the article and are not notable. I understand the preamble to WP:CORP to mean it's the standard that must be met for an independent article on the topic to exist.
The subject of MDS America's notability had been under discussion previously on Wikipedia, and I thought the conclusion was that we were notable. I bring the subject of notability up again now because I believe that the proposed merge is only permitted by WP policy if MDS America is not now, and has never been, notable.
Regarding mediation options, I will look in to those before I express an opinion. The edit history is such a mess that I'm concerned few people will have the patience to figure out what really happened.
I do appreciate your patience and tolerance here. Bhimaji 21:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This is more of an overlap isssue than a notability issue, as I have already said. Now, I don't think this one-on-one debate is useful for determining consensus. Let's wait for new input and in the mean time decide what kind of resolution process we will use to close this. nadav 21:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Information wanted about MDS America

  • When was MDS America founded?
2001, I think.
Jan 4 200
  • In what state was it incorporated?
I think somewhere in the midwest; I'll investigate.
incorporated in Michigan
  • Is it publicly traded? (I assume not)
No, it's entirely privately owned. The Kuwaiti holding company that, I believe, is the primary owner is also privately held.
All is correct
  • Does it need to file any routine reports, that are publicly viewable, with either the US government or a state government? If so, is there a URL available?
We file with FCC on many many mattes.
  • Is there an FCC file on MDS America that we can look at?
Tons just search on MDS America
  • Is anything reported about its annual revenue or number of employees?
Nothing is published. The IRS knows, of course.
Just with the IRS.
  • Does it still have any ownership ties with MDS International? (owners of MDSA that own part of MDSI or vice versa).
Sheikh Ali does not own any portion of MDS International. Jean Claude does not own any portion of MDS America. I believe that Fabrice may have a non-controlling interest in MDS International.
All cross ownership was resolved with the agreements. MDSI is owned by Jean-Claude Ducasse and his four children, However they are all being sued by MDSI. MDSI has lost every French suit the have brought up to this time.

Thanks, EdJohnston 21:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've put in the answers I'm aware of; I'll check with the COO tomorrow for the rest. Bhimaji 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Search on FCC site sorted by date I'm unable to open the doc files. Please help with digging. nadav 22:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to convert some of those to PDFs if you wish, when I'm in the office and have MS Word handy. Bhimaji 01:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Closing merge discussion

Hello all, I'm back from my short wikibreak. I'd like to ask someone that's familiar with this stuff to close the merge discussion per WP:MERGE#Closing/archive a proposed merger. Can we ask any of the admins that have been following some of this to do it? nadav 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment at the bottom of the poll. Cheers. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Finding a compromise?

Is it possible we could try to find a compromise among ourselves? Given the long history among a number of different articles, as well as confusing IP addresses and foreign language text, I think that we'd all likely be happier if we could work out an appropriate compromise rather than asking strangers to come in, understand everything, and then decide.

I'm sure that the MDSA marketing guys would love it if the MDSA article said we were perfect and the best in the world, etc. etc. Obviously, Wikipedia isn't an appropriate forum for such claims.

Personally, I would just like to have an article that references the fact that we do exist as a company, and tells people which Wikipedia articles they can go to for more information. I would actually prefer that it not contain PR-speak, since I think that the NPOV descriptions of the legal and regulatory foo speak for themselves and make us look appropriately good in an honest and objective way.

When dealing with articles about, say, WW-II battles, I think it's reasonable to choose top-level articles based purely on information content. However, in the case of people and organizations, I think that a combination of information and notability should be used. The battle of Midway is nothing but an event in a larger series of events that are fuzzily defined in terms of starting and ending. Organizations and people have clearly defined existence, and have some biographical information that is independent of their actions. When I read about something notable that somebody did, I want to know what else they did. If the person or organization's top-level entry redirects only into an article about one thing they did, I can't tell if that's all they've done or if nobody's gotten around to writing about what else they've done.

More concretely, I think that redirecting the MDSA article into MVDDS dispute will give people the wrong impression, and make them think that we probably don't exist anymore. Few people are likely to follow through to the MVDDS article and figure out that MDS also owns significant spectrum.

Getting directly to the question: Are there changes that could be made to the MDS America article that would make those in favor of merging amenable to keeping it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhimaji (talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Could somebody get started on the Notes to MDS America? Some of the links don't work. The federal court link is not to the actual court case. The definition of MVDDS is not found. There is a lot of room for improvement in the details. The South Coast Television link is just to their web site, and says nothing about the project that MDSA built. Proper citation templates could be used (per WP:CITE). If proponents of keeping the article would work to make it better, it would help persuade me that it should be kept. I would also like to see mention of the *other* companies that currently make MVDDS equipment, so we get some idea of who is the competition. EdJohnston 17:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)