Talk:Sterling Jewelers Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ohio Portal Sterling Jewelers Inc. is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.

I hereby attest that no money or other compensation was received for the creation of this article about Sterling Jewelers Inc. from Sterling Jewelers Inc. or any other entity associated with Sterling Jewelers Inc, including its parent company Signet Group plc and its trade names. --Malachite84 06:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the litigation section as it is un-encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a place to complain or note various lawsuits. Otherwise, all of the other retail wikipedia pages would be cluttered with court cases. In fact, every single wikipedia page about ANY company or person would be littered with court cases and unhappy customers. Also, the user who created the section provided no sources or references and has no history of previous wikipedia entries. It is possible to conclude that the user made the wikipedia account simply to post this irrelevant information. I will request a moderator/administrator to review and intervene as neccesary if this becomes an issue. We cannot let this online encyclopedia become a place for people to complain or a forum for negative information. Malachite84 (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I had posted a section based on Sterling Jewelers in regards to a notable lawsuit that was made public in multiple newspapers. This is NOT negative, bias, slanted, or any form of complaint against Sterling Jewelers. I have no affiliation with Sterling Jewelers or Mr. Manning, I am instead interested in helping Wikipedia Grow. The Small two paragraph section that I added to the Sterling Jewelers page explained a recent civil court case against them, and the outcome. I provided the source in correct formatting and gave credit where credit is due. I got all information from a certified Palm Beach County Civil Court Case Index. In addition, I am a third party studying business law and find this particular addition to the Sterling Jewelers page to be extremely useful and informational. Yes, this is my first Wikipedia account, but simply for that reason I don't feel it is justified to remove my post which I spend several hours perfecting and researching. The reason I chose to elaborate on Sterling Jewelers is because I happened to notice the original case when going through multiple hearing transcripts for Law School. Again, I providing necessary citations, factual evidence, a scholarly source, and historical/factual information that can help others to learn more about Sterling Jewelers history. --Biodole 02:25, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Biodole, please read Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Relevance of content. I have submitted this page for mediation and for third party comment. There is no need to go into such detail about any lawsuites in any article either, as Wikipedia is written in summary form. Thank you. Malachite84 (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page until the editing dispute is resolved. Addhoc (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Malachite84 (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Addhoc - I actually read those things right after Malachite84 originally deleted my post. That is why I went back, inserted Citations to a reputable source, and also inserted links where necessary etc. I made sure, after reading my 2 paragraphs over and over that there was no slant what-so-ever. There was absolutely no negative bashing of the company, or praise either. As a matter of fact...My two paragraphs were the only two paragraphs that actually had citations and references on that whole Sterling Jewelers Page. If you would be more pleased if I was to scale it down into a more summarized form, I would certainly be glad to do that, as I understand Wikipedia is summary form. But nonetheless, to eliminate factual encyclopedic evidence about a company completely, especially non-bias heavily researched and cited information seems wrong. I re-read the 5 pillars, reliable sources and relevance of content and strongly feel that my 2 paragraphs about Sterling Jewelers and their previous civil litigation is very informational and completely fits within the scope of rules and recommendations for Wikipedia. --Biodole 14:13, 25 February 2008 (EST)

Also, I neglected to mention - Lawsuits, especially ones that are historic and can alter a company's reputation and lead to greater litigations (including class action lawsuits) are Extremely important. Remember, the information I posted, even with full scholarly citation, was published in the two largest south florida newspapers - The Palm Beach Post, and the Sun-Sentinel. Most of the other information on the Sterling Jewelers Wiki isn't nearly as informative or pivotal as the litigation information I provided. It's not like I provided some random lawsuit in regards to a disgruntled employee seeking reimbursement for two or three days work. This is instead a civil lawsuit that favored the Plantiff against Sterling Jewelers for a large sum of money in regards to misrepresentation of goods and fraud! These are not casual topics for litigation, but very serious issues about the company. Thank you for your consideration. --Biodole 03:32, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Are you admitting that you are posting the information to try and harm the company's reputation? Or just acknowledging that you know that the secular non-scholarly regional newspaper(s) (never allowed as a reliable source in my University publications) article you copied will be harmful? Wikipedia is not the place to be posting negative lawsuits about every company on their articles. This is an encyclopedia. Not a message board to turn people against companies. Or a posting board for lawsuits. I do believe that Biodole needs to get the "feel" of Wikipedia before trying to change policies and add controversially negative statements to articles. It makes me extremely sad to see our factual encyclopedia degenerate into a listing of negative publicity. Malachite84 (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Malachite84, first of all, secular sources are the only scholarly sources for non-religious matters. Why would I use a non-secular source? Are you getting religion and encyclopedic science confused? Secondly, I think you need to read my post again, because you seem to have jumped to conclusions. My source is actually the "OFFICIAL PALM BEACH COUNTY COURT INDEX OF CIVIL LAWSUITS." It doesn't get any more scholarly than that. I said this case was MADE POPULAR and PUBLISHED in newspapers down in south Florida - then I mentioned the names of the papers. I never once cited the newspaper as a source. You are now trying to put words in my mouth and seemingly using dirty tactics to have your way. I am an non-bias 3rd party. I am a law school student. I know everything a law school student has to know about scholarly sources and I will tell you this - The Palm Beach County Court Index is by far one of the most scholarly sources a human being can get their hands on. In addition - just because this litigation happened to be negative against Sterling Jewelers doesn't mean that I am trying to post negative information about them. If someone looked this company up, they have every right to know Factual and potentially pivotal information about them backed with a credible source. Do not try to put words in my mouth, and most certainly do not try to tell me that I am trying to turn people against companies. This is an actual case that has been tried and decided on in the Florida Judicial system. I therefore offered this information and sourcing to back it up. I have NO affiliation to Sterling Jewelers or Mr. Manning. I have never even been inside a Jared myself, and I have never even met Mr. Manning. I have a set of Encyclopedia Britannica here, 2007 edition. In these encyclopedias, I have found countless companies that have litigations mentioned either FOR or AGAINST. So also, do not try to tell me that litigations are bias or negative. They are factual pieces of information and they belong in an encyclopedia, especially one(s) that are so pivotal to a company. Controversially negative statements? Since when is mentioning a lawsuit a negative statement? Type in OJ Simpson in Wikipedia - tell me is there any talk about the lawsuit? There are 7 sections and over 10 paragraphs in relation to OJ Simpson litigation. The legal section about OJ Simpson is actually just as long, if not longer than the section about other things involving him. I don't see you trying to remove any of that? Your condescending tone only shows your lack of respect for me. --Biodole 01:37, 29 February 2008 (EST)

Hi Biodole, the legal controversy surrounding OJ Simpson received a massive amount of media attention, so is considered relevant. However, I'm not sure if the case you are referring to was reported in the media. Are there any reliable secondary sources? Addhoc (talk) 13:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi there Adhoc - There actually are reliable secondary sources to back up the original primary source (The Palm Beach County Civil Court Index). The Palm Beach Post and Sun Sentinel (if you have a membership with their archives) could be considered secondary sources. In addition, I'm pretty sure there are a few online sources that have mentioned this in past months. The only problem is that now most of these sites have archived it, so I would have to go digging. Shouldn't be a problem though. However, regardless, the two biggest South Florida Newspapers - as well as a few local TV news-stations (Local-10, NBC6, WSVN-7, etc) gave this story plenty of coverage. Thats one of the reasons I decided to publish the information about it in the first place, because of the hundreds of thousands if not millions of people who read those papers and saw the story on TV. Between Broward and Palm Beach County alone, there are over 3 million residents. So local media would certainly cater to a very wide audience. I could probably scan in a photocopy the Palm Beach County Civil Court Index and paste it up on a photo sharing site like imageshack and then link wikipedia members to that site for proof of sourcing. I might even be able to get a hold of the archived newspapers through my university and scan those as well (if I have the legal permission). Just let me know whatever you need...but again as I stated before, this would be the ONLY part of the Sterling Jewelers entry that actually has ANY sourcing at all. Thanks a lot. --Biodole 15:31, 29 February 2008 (EST)

As per the discussion in the request for mediation page - I agree to the terms of the compromise. I will be glad to rename the title of the litigations section to "Controversies", move this new section to the bottom of the page (above the works cited), and lastly summarize it down even further to avoid as much negative slant as possible. Thank you. --Biodole 00:27, 03 March 2008 (EST)

I will continue working towards a compromise once the rude and uncalled for commments to and about me are removed from this page. I'm feeling attacked. Malachite84 (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

As per your request, I did not realize how much my comments and criticism affected you. Please accept my sincere appologies, as I was honestly not in any way trying to attack your person or character. I will remove any controversial comments about you completely from this section. In addition, I would like to express again my full fledged agreement to Xenosagian's 3rd party mediation recommendation. It really meets in the middle for both of us. It's considerably less than what I originally wanted, but also more than what you wanted. Therefore, it really sits right in the middle between us. However, if you really don't like it - please tell me how we could make it sit well with you? I really think that the topic deserves noticing and even if I rename it "controversies" and remove most of the lawsuit summary - what else would you propose we do? --Biodole 02:28, 06 March 2008 (EST)

So, will there be any further replies, or have you accepted the comprimise Malachite84? It's been 10 days since you last commented, and 8 days since I changed everything to accommodate your requests. The least you can do is put a speedy end to all of this and let us either agree to disagree and take the mediator's compromise - or you can provide another suggestion. Please reply as soon as possible. Thank you --Biodole 01:40, 14 March 2008 (EST)

It has now been 20 days since Malachite84's last reply. I am not sure what happens in the result of a dispute where one party stops responding. Xenosagian (or applicable mediator), please help a decision be made so that this issue will not drag on forever. It has been 30 days since the original issue came up, and 20 days since the person (Malichite84) disputed my post. I would very much appreciate coming to terms ASAP. Thank you!! --Biodole 16:40, 24 March 2008 (EST)

With this obvious lack of care or concern (on behalf of Malichite84) on the request for mediation page for a mutually beneficial resolution, I no longer wish to come to terms with him. I previously did everything possible to appease him, even though I was well within wikipedia rules (as mentioned by Xenosagian). I went as far as removing comments and words in our discussions to please him. I see now that there is no pleasing him and he demands to have things his way. This is unacceptable. I will not settle this to give into his petty demands. I ask wikipedia to make a decision based on the official rules and regulations of the site. I recommend and humbly ask for a "controversies" section with a brief description of the incident, as well as full citations to the scholarly source. Sterling Jewelers does not deserve special treatment because Malichite84 feels this section to be unnecessary. That would be selective and bias to omit such important events intentionally and definitely against Wikipedia's policies. I'm sorry that he feels that he have to be so rigid, but problems in your life or not, I will not accept his terms. I'm sorry I tried to appease him thus far, as it has truly accomplished absolutely nothing. I hereby ask for a moderator to make a final decision on the topic so that we can put this issue down once and for all.--Biodole 14:20, 17 April 2008 (EST)