Talk:Eridani Light Horse

This article is within the scope of the Military Commands WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve BattleTechWiki's coverage of articles on military units. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

CBT.com material[edit]

[Scott Malcomson responds] There is no argument to be made that the work was not accepted, and published as canon material, by Fantasy Productions.

Under the publication laws of the United States, there is no difference between electronic and physical publication.

FanPro chose to use my material, without permission, as the online resource for history regarding the Eridani Light Horse. It was published online in a canon format with absolutely no waivers to the contrary. These facts are a matter of public record, which I have preserved in their original electronic format, to include statements by FanPro's official representatives that anything FanPro publishes on its CBT website is canon material.

Removing my material from the website, after using it for in excess of a year, does not remove canonicity. It merely relegates my material to the status of "out of print".

I should once again reiterate that this material was originally used by FanPro WITHOUT PERMISSION. FASA never cut a contract or made any agreement for its use; it does not belong to the company slushpile that FanPro inherited. If Fantasy Productions is now choosing to renege on the agreement that I would forgo legal action and allow the use of my material in exchange for its recognition as canon material, and myself as an accredited Battletech author, then I would have cause to pursue legal action for fraud, copyright infringement, and breach of contract under Arizona and federal law.

Therefore, until and unless FanPro makes an official statement rejecting the original terms of our agreement --- and, to my understanding, they have not done so, certainly not in the form of any communications to me --- I must request that you remove the challenge to my work's legitimacy.

On the other hand, if indeed someone from FanPro has made such a statement, I will require identification of the person responsible and, if any copy of the statement can be made available, a legible copy thereof. I will thereafter confirm with FanPro any such statement prior to making a decision regarding legal action.

Until that point, I am perfectly happy to be considered "official, but out of print".— The preceding unsigned comment was provided by 24.56.3.88 (talkcontribs) 08:14, 21 July 2007.

I asked about your statement on the CBT.com discussion forums. You can read the responses I got here. What it boils down to is that WizKids holds all the rights to everything BattleTech and they can do whatever they want with it, including declaring previously canon materials non-canon. --Scaletail 09:42, 22 July 2007 (CDT)
[Scott Malcomson responds] Checked your link. Firstly, not one of the respondents is either WizKids or FanPro staff. You have forum moderators speaking, who are volunteers presenting personal opinions. As such, all such statements are unofficial. Not to mention the fact that the statements which ARE made are contradictory, including one that states my work is in fact canon.
Secondly, none of my original material contradicts any currently-canon material. According to the standards set by FASA, and currently adhered to by WizKids and FanPro, new material merely UPDATES older material. And it does so purely on an entry-by-entry basis. Only in the event of a specific conflict between the works does the newer version take precedence; the existence of a newer version does not result in the older version being removed from canon. Note also that while Battletechnology was never canon, it was also declared from the beginning to be non-canon. My material bears no such disclaimer.
Bearing all of this in mind, FanPro published my work as canon in 2001. As such, any conflicts which appear in previously-published material were updated and replaced by my own work. This would include Field Manual: ComStar, which appeared in 1999. Only material which has been published since 2001 can have an impact on the canonicity of my material, barring an official statement to the contrary from WizKids/FanPro.— The preceding unsigned comment was provided by 24.56.3.88 (talkcontribs) 15:50, 25 July 2007.

Mercenary's Handbook[edit]

Hey all. What about the information provided in the Mercenary's Handbook? There's a relatively complete history as well as a full unit description. It's all based on 3026, but it might be worthwhile to reference. And it's FASA supplied information. Bdevoe 22:47, 27 July 2007 (CDT)
If you would like to use that as the basis for starting the article, please do so. I don't have that particular book, so I cannot use it as a source, though I do intend to actually write up an article for the ELH when I get the time using the books I do have. Be bold and do it! Scaletail 21:33, 29 July 2007 (CDT)
Will do, when I get back to the homestead (on travel right now). I also need to do the 12th Star Guards when I get a chance. :) Bdevoe 19:46, 30 July 2007 (CDT)


Lacking[edit]

Alright, the beginning is great, but the Eridani Light Horse later went on to become a core unit of the reborn Star League Defense Force, and assumed command and control over the majority of operations as part of Task Force Serpent. As is well known, Marshall Morgan Hasek-Davion was killed en route to Huntress, and Ariana Winston was designated Task Force Commander. She maintained command of the Task Force until her death shortly before the planet fall of Task Force Bulldog. Command of the 'Brigade' passed to Edwin Amis, who later took the unit to the Planet of Milos shortly after Sun-Tzu Liao's replacement as First Lord. They were later driven back as the world was untenable, and impossible to hold, due in a large part to the Capellan Confederation's successful PsyOps Campaign.— The preceding unsigned comment was provided by 75.80.218.90 (talkcontribs) 01:21, 16 December 2008.

Added information about the War of 3039, Clan Invasion, and Reborn Star League today. Will add other information soon.--Mbear 18:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Added more information re: Second Star League and opening years of Jihad.--Mbear 15:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Added stuff from the "25 years" book. ClanWolverine101 20:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Jihad Era information[edit]

The WizKids content about the ELH can be found at the Warrenborn mirror: http://www.warrenborn.com/Fiction/Mercenary%20Reviews/Eridani%20Light%20Horse.html --Mbear 14:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw that. Not sure if it should be used as a citation, though? ClanWolverine101 16:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

War of 3039[edit]

The last sentence, "It would be a decade before the 71st was back up to full strength." What does page 88 of the field manual say regarding the actual time? I can't believe it was exactly a decade. Just trying to edit the grammar a bit and make it more presentable. Need to know, in order to choose between either "nearly a decade" or "more than a decade." — The preceding unsigned comment was provided by Neoritter (talkcontribs) on 29 April 2010.

It was nearly a decade. I didn't write that though, as I thought it was too close to the text of FM:CS and didn't want to risk a plagarism claim.--Mbear 11:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
Considering that you have the source cited and that it's a statement of fact rather than an opinion. It shouldn't be considered plagarism. Neoritter 11:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Malcomson v. Topps[edit]

What is the rationale for including a link to an outdated history of the ELH? I am of the opinion there is no merit to it and the link(s) should be removed. Moreover, I cannot find evidence to support the assertions concerning the lawsuit. I'm no legal scholar, but the only information I could find showed that the court ruled in summary judgement for Topps [1] and the 9th Circuit Court refused to hear any appeal [2], and made no statements concerning the merit of the written work. It seems I am missing a document. Please provide references for the material in question or it will be removed. --Scaletail 17:44, 23 June 2012 (PDT)

To counter the argument, I found the information interesting, and appreciated it being there. I do reckognize that this is all legal hot waters, but that in itself warrants inclusion on this wiki imho - it falls squarely into our "all things BattleTech" policy. I've been preparing writeups for BattleTech-related lawsuits including the ELH lawsuit, and once that article is written there should be a link from the ELH page anyways. Frabby 23:31, 23 June 2012 (PDT)
If I may, its my understanding that the content in question is no longer considered canon. (If it ever was.) I would vote that while Frabby's got a great idea with articles about lawsuits (Damn, BT has a lot of those!), those should strictly be footnotes in the ELH article. ClanWolverine101 00:09, 24 June 2012 (PDT)
On the other hand, is it really wise to provide a link to said minefield? Yes, I know that everyone is responsible for their own action, but you see so much stupidity on the Internet and I rather no have anyone starting anything unpleasant on the CGL forums from a link they have found at Sarna. To be clear, I am not opposing the coverage of the history of the lawsuit, I am just opposing providing a link to the material that caused the trouble in the first case. --Neufeld 00:38, 24 June 2012 (PDT)
Ive been hearing complaints about that stuff being on the main ELH article and people want it removed. Could we perhaps move it to this talk page? -BobTheZombie (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2014 (PDT)
I'd be inclined to leave it on the front page. The detail on the lawsuit is clearly marked and in a seperate section at the end of the article. I think it's reasonable to assume that at least some of those coming to Sarna to look at the ELH article are looking for detail on the lawsuit, and I'm nervous about detail being moved into the talk pages because those aren't as intuitively easy to find - and I suspect, although it is just a suspicion, are also much less trafficked. Sarna isn't just a log of canon detail, it's a record of the history of BattleTech - that's why we have articles on apocryphal sources, on BattleTech authors and developers, on the companies involved, and so on. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2014 (PDT)
Couldn't have said it better myself. Out of curiosity, who has been complaining about this information being presented on Sarna, and where? Frabby (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2014 (PDT)
Yes, the talk pages definitely have less views and when I didn't have an account here I never clicked on that tab. For this article specifically the main page has ~38,400 views while the talk page only has ~1,800. Your points make a lot of sense; I personally didn't really care either way in the matter. The person complaining about the info can be found here; I offered to help but tried to not claim I would remove it all. He also brought up moving it to the fanon wiki, but that's probably not the best idea. -BobTheZombie (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2014 (PDT)
Reading that thread, I think the comment refers to using material written by Malcolmson about the Eridani Light Horse in the canon section of the article, or possibly the link to the material produced by Malcolmson, rather than reporting on the legal details of the case. Given the content of the complaint - particularly the reference to stroking Malcolmson's ego - I'm not inclined to support it. His material isn't canon, and we aren't reproducing it. It occupies a slightly different status to straight fanon content because it was once, however accidentally and tangentially, canon for a brief while. That makes it arguably rather more canon than some of the odd detail we have on here, like the German fan-novel Frabby found that got published, and we have no direct mention of the content of Malcolmson's material on here, unlike tthat novel. I think it's entirely valid for us to link to where the material is available, because it's pertinent to the detail of the court case within the article section, and I think it's equally valid for us to not have repeated any of that material. The complaint rather looks like someone wants the link removed because they basically don't like Malcolmson. I don't see how that's something we should take a view on. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2014 (PDT)
Okay, that makes perfect sense; thanks for clarifying; I'll explain it to them and won't change it. I was thinking maybe we should move the existing info down at the bottom to a "Notes" section to explain that stuff, but maybe it's best to just stay at the bottom. -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:14, 26 March 2014 (PDT)
It might be worth someone familiar with the material making sure that our entry has anything from Malcolmson's work cited as apocryphal - from what I know of the ELH, the article doesn't use any of his detail, but I've never really looked at the unit in any detail. BrokenMnemonic (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2014 (PDT)
Looking over the current article structure I find that I don't like one bit. The article should contain a notion to the effect that a history writeup was once officially published, but has since been redacted and declared non-canon (actually, has it?). The entire Malcomson vs. Topps issue should be put into its own article as it only tangentially concerns the ELH, and this article should mention it and point to the other article otherwise. Frabby (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2014 (PDT)
Perhaps... -BobTheZombie (talk) 14:40, 26 March 2014 (PDT)
Looks like this was re-visited by 'some' IP, but returned to community consensus status by BobTheZombie. I suggest we bring the section up to above References and re-name it Background or Behind the scenes (ala Wookiepedia).--Revanche (talk|contribs) 08:19, 18 May 2014 (PDT)