Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/A Bridge Too Far

This Request for Mediation has been closed. This case was closed at 05:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC) The reason given for closure was: inactivity Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request.

Archive of the request.[1]

• Bark (talk · contribs)
• Motor (talk · contribs)

I've been away past week, but I think we can start now.

Now I'd like to start with each of you giving me the reasons for your position in a brief and concise statement (and only your reasons, not reasons to disapprove the other's version) -- Drini 00:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bark

It's a movie page. This movie is related to a plot point in "PCU". A discreet link pertaining to the reference in "PCU" allows users who want to see this reference in greater detail the ability to do so. Those who don't want to click on the link don't have to. Bark 14:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Motor

I explained in detail my reasons for reverting the edit on the talk page of the article. It is an article about the novel and the book A Bridge Too Far. Given the trivial nature of this dispute, there really is not much else to say on the matter. - Motor (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion

While it's customary to add trivia items to articles (and this is indeed a trivia item), it's also true that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The thing is that indeed, the CH theory may be interested for people looking at PCU, it's only marginally interesting for people looking for A Bridge Too Far.

So I'll write here to specific examples of related situations to see if they shed some light.

At Hot Shots! Part Deux there's a remembering scene that takes place on an italian restaurant. In the background you can see a character resembling Michael Corleone hinting the italian restaurant scene in The Godfather. such scence is very significant in both movies. In the first, it stablishes the relationship of starring with his troubled past, and sets the tone of the tension between them during the whole movie. In The Godfther, it's no-return point, after which Michael is no longer a good boy.

Now, the Godfather bit is mentioned on the Hot Shots II article, since it's a parody movie, and thus it's interesting to read about what it's being parodied. But on the Godfather movie is no where mentioned. Although it's debatable if mentioning movies that parody Godfather would be a worthwhile item, it should be noted that hundrds of movie have parodied/referenced the Godfather, so maybe a detailed list would not be appropiate.

However, in the Godfather article, there's a trivia item about how fans of the movie consider oranges to carry special meanings (oranges signal important death scenes). This would be similar to the CH theory, it's a theory important for fans of the movie. However, it's not mentioned on Hot Shots II article (which references the Godfather) and it's not mentioned on Orange (fruit), since for most people looking up information about oranges the connection is uninteresting (while it is for eople looking up about The Godfather). However, it could be argued that the the theory is mentioned on the movie itself, while the oranges theory is not.

In the Godfather movie, there's a scene where Michael is taught how to cook an italian dish.

[edit] Bark

With all due respect, I'm not understanding this rationale. Indeed, many movies have referenced "The Godfather", so much so that a separate page would be needed to avoid the clutter. Hypothetically, if someone researched movies and compiled a list of movies referencing "The Godfather", and decided to contribute that list here on a separate page, and then inserted a "See List_of_Movies_Referencing_'The_Godfather'", would such a contribution be edited out? I don't believe it would. If on such a page, the individual notes linked to the various movies listed, would that be inappropriate? I don't believe it would.

So why isn't there a page listing the movies that have referenced "The Godfather"? Is it because the administrators on this site have decided against it due to content? I would highly doubt that. It's probably because no one has ever taken the time to compile such a list.

What does Mel Gibson have to do with the Treaty of Montgomery (1267)? Absolutely nothing, but I was able to go from the article on the one to the article on the other in just three clicks (Mel Gibson to Braveheart to Edward I of England to Treaty of Montgomery) The fact is that "A Bridge Too Far" and "PCU" have a lot more in common by the virtue that they are both movies. Now arguing against such links may have some merit, but if this is the case, why include cross-links in articles on this site at all? With all due respect, this isn't an example of an "indiscriminate collection of information". The fact is the subject of CH, "PCU", and a link to it on the "A Bridge Too Far" existed before either myself or Motor came along to edit them. Granted, the form back then may have been tacky, and I honestly tried to compromise with Motor to get the information in a form that was discreet. He/She (sorry Motor, I don't know which applies) sought nothing less than complete removal. Such a narrow vision runs counter to the spirit of this site, in my opinion.

Also with all due respect, the point about the "Orange" page linking to "The Godfather" is, well, like comparing movies and oranges. I never argued to have bullets link to "A Bridge Too Far" or beef link to "PCU", so I find that a bit of a non sequitur.

In fact, the only argument that makes any sense to me is the argument that "PCU" isn't "good" enough of a film to be listed, or even inferred, on such a "great" film like "A Bridge Too Far". I find that argument to be elitist, and that's disappointing.

I never said PCU wans't good. My analogy was like this: The CH theory is omportant to PCU fans, as the Oranges theory is important to Godfather fans. The Orange theory is mentioned at the Godfather article since that's the movie that originates it, and the CH is mentioned at the PCU article snce that's the movie that originated it. The Oranges theory is not mentioned at Orange or Fruit or such articles, and it's not mentioned either at Hot Shots 2 which is a movie link ed tothe Godfather (which would be the analog of the A bridge too Fat a movie linked to PCU).

However I got something to stress. My role here is not to come out with a binding resolution, that is, it's not my job to decide wether the link stays or not. My job is help you both to find an acceptable middle ground. So instead of focusing on the black-white issue of "leaving the link or not", I'm asking you both to reconsider the whole issue, and try to propose a compromise on both sides. -- Drini 19:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise

I'm open to a compromise. Motor, how would you like to compromise? Put something out there, and I'll seriously consider it. Bark 03:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Bark, we already compromised... the trivia entry relating to Cain and Hackman remained, and the reference to PCU stayed out. This is right there on the article talk page:

"You know what guys? I'm not unreasonable. I'm fine with having the item just say "This is the only film to star both Michael Caine and Gene Hackman," without linking. I'll just add a link to the PCU page in the "Caine-Hackman Thesis" portion of the talk page." -- Bark 15:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The starting of a long-delayed mediation on this trivial matter doesn't change that, or my opinion about why the inappropriate reference to PCU should stay out. - Motor (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that's a good compromise. After all, Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine so the article of ABTF shouldn't become a PCU advertisement (nor the other way). I'll explain myself. If the sole reason for the link is to "increase exposure of PCU film" then that reason needs a rethink. Specially since other editors involed on ABTF article have agreed to it, so consensus seem to be aout not including the link.

While I (in a personal way, not as a mediator) think that's a good compromise, but perhaps there's other reasons for such link to be possibly added that aren't being considered yet? More comments Bark? -- Drini 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

FINALLY! Motor finally said something about my proposed compromise on May 8th. It only took six weeks. Bark 12:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Bark, I edited the page and left the trivia there before your "compromise" post to the talk page of the article (go and check)... it wasn't even your suggestion. You only agreed to it. Later I told Drini on his talk page back on the 7th June that it the matter was long settled (you replied to that post). Now you post this here... seriously, my WP:AGF is at its limit. I suggest you let it drop. - Motor (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll assume your last response was a "Yes, I agree to that, Bark. It's a reasonable compromise." Seriously, learn to talk with words. It's like your a chick who expects others to read their minds.

Peace out. --Bark 14:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool down your words guys. so, are we done here? User:Drini

• Closed due to inactivity -- Drini 05:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)