Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:57, 30 July 2012

Skip to open disputes skip to newest thread (purge cache)

• WP:DRN
• WP:DR/N

This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Misplaced Pages. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Misplaced Pages policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page. This may also apply to some groups.

If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
Last updated by FireflyBot (talk) at 18:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Harvard University (Notable people)

• Harvard University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The problems revolve around the Notable people section. At this point, the most relevant issue is the question of whether the information in this section should have citations. I deleted the section because it was completely uncited and included a lot of BLP information. ElKevbo reverted, objecting on the grounds that " some of it is common knowledge and trivially verifiable." I redeleted per WP:BLP and began a discussion at the talk page. Eeng rereverted shortly thereafter, saying that WP:BLPCAT trumped my reading of BLP.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Bdb484 (talk · contribs)
• ElKevbo (talk · contribs)
• EEng (talk · contribs)
• Hot Stop (talk · contribs)
• Fat&Happy (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Harvard University (Notable people)}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

We're still locked in at the D stage of WP:BRD. I would typically go next to WP:3O, but we're already at five opinions, so my experience tells me that they'd likely decline the request on those grounds.

• How do you think we can help?

We could use a few more eyes and thoughtful opinions.

— Bdb484 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Harvard University (Notable people) discussion

Why would one need citations when listing notable alumni? Where would the citations link to? Electric Catfish 15:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What always bothers me about these lists is the lack of citations to show that people qualify for the list. So the citation would link to proof that the person is an alumnus. It's no good saying it's already in the subject's article, as we know we can't use Misplaced Pages articles as sources and that references can come and go in articles. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

As it would on any other article, the citations would link to a reliable source supporting the claim that the person is a graduate or faculty member. For instance, Steeler Nation has a section on "famous fans." While I think this information is unencyclopedic, restricting the list to names with sources has helped to keep the list from growing out of control. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

We need to discuss the general policy on this at WikiProject Universities. I need time to think about it as I have only just encountered the objection. The vast majority of university and college articles have lists of notable people, and they hardly ever carry references at that point, but most entries are verifiable. We sometimes have had questions about individuals. I know that ElKevbo is careful about these matters and would keep spam entries out. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should or should not be the subject of a policy change discussion, but for the time being, I agree with Dougweller. WP:V couldn't be any clearer: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation." That applies to all parts of WP. This has been challenged (and I can find nothing that says that the reasons for a challenge must be stated, indeed a bare revert without even an edit summary is a sufficient challenge; about the only insufficient challenge would be one which itself somehow violates policy). It must therefore either be sourced or removed. WP:BLPCAT is clearly inapplicable. WP:IAR can be used to create a local exception to WP:V, but to use it, you have to get consensus, and you don't have it. Even if you did, IAR consensuses tend to be pretty fragile since consensus can change. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

BLPcat days the same rules applies for lists. Hot Stop 18:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The crucial phrase is "material likely to be challenged ". Are we worried about Isaac Newton's listing at University of Cambridge? Are we worried about Alan Bennett's (living)? What I suggest is this. We don't need to go into a big dispute here.The WikiProject guidelines will be rewritten to make it clear that all these lists, and paragraphs where it is prose, need inline citation. We will all work on improving the articles. We will add citation needed templates. And where including someone living could possibly be disparaging, we will remove the person's name and leave a message on the article talk page. It will take some time to clean it all up, but we can do it, assuming good faith and working together. Even with BLPs, though, 90 per cent of the time the person is proud to be included as an alumnus and the university is proud have their distinguished alumnus mentioned. At the WikiProject we will advise editors to consult BLPN if there is any doubt at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

But the policy does say, "challenged or likely to be challenged". I think "challenged" is pretty crucial, too, or it wouldn't be in the policy. "Likely to be challenged" is irrelevant if it has, in fact, been challenged. (And I'd also like to just note in passing that anything decided at a WikiProject, such as Universities, cannot under WP:CONLIMITED create an exception to policy, unless the policy-making procedure in WP:POLICY is followed.) I fully agree that there's no need for a big dispute here, because there's no room for a dispute: Once the nonsensical appeal to BLPCAT is disregarded, the matter is solved by WP:V. If anyone wants to start an effort to change policy, that's up to them, but it's not needed to settle this dispute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything has has been challenged counts with likely to be challenged. However, I'm not going to be deleting whole sections where it is more appropriate to tag. I checked some of our FAs and they do have inline citations for most or all alumni, thank goodness. Some major university articles that aren't yet FA lack the inline citations, and this has not been challenged, mainly because few people would object to being listed as a Harvard or Cambridge alumnus even if it were an error. I also suspect that many lists have been copied or migrated from the universities' own websites, and while this is not ideal, a university is in principle RS for who studied there, Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, is it possible that the information has actually been sourced (through an External Link to the university website), just not cited inline? - Jorgath (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I wouldn't delete the section, either, and wholly agree that the best practices version is to tag and wait a few days, help look for sources, and then delete whatever hasn't been sourced, but policy clearly says that it's acceptable to just go ahead and delete. @Jorgath: Policy requires an inline citation once the material has been challenged. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

(1) While I'm sure he meant well I wouldn't call Bdb484's summary a good representation of the discussion that I, and three other editors, have had with him about this at some length on the article Talk page. Out of respect for that effort I ask that people read that discussion prior to commenting and, as a start, address the arguments already made there.

(2) In particular, I'd like to know why my reading of BLPCAT is "nonsensical".

(3) I don't understand how itsmejudith can predict that WikiProject (presumably Wikiproject University) guidelines "will" be changed in such-and-such a way.

(4) Anyway, I belive this is simply a question (though not necessarily a simple question) of interpretation of BLP, with applicability well beyond any one project -- e.g. listings of "notable residents" of cities and towns. If the discussion is going to expand beyond this one article then I suggest it be transferred to BLPN.

(5) But first, I repeat, please read the discussion linked above and speak to the arguments there.

EEng (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I will look at the article talk pages in detail. The reason I can predict that the article guidelines will be changed is that I know that WP:UNI is a fantastic project and is going to follow overall policy. If members of the project feel that the wider guidelines are incorrect, fhey'll take it up in the right places. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Everybody agrees we should follow policy. The disagreement is over exactly what BLP policy requires in this case. I'll be interested to hear what you think after you've read the talk. EEng (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC) P.S. What is "WP:*!* OS"?

@EEng: Perhaps I've missed the point about BLPCAT (it wouldn't be the first time I've ever missed a point). Are you saying that BLPCAT says something about whether or not sources are required or are you citing it for something altogether different? (I get that whatever it says appears to apply to lists as well as categories; I don't contend that it doesn't. I haven't looked at the question of whether it applies equally to embedded lists in textual articles as well as list-only articles, but I'm willing to assume for the time being for the sake of argument that it applies equally to both.) If you contend that it says something about providing sources, what is it that you say it says? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC) PS: And, yes, before you ask, I have already read the discussion at the article talk page. — TM 00:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The argument re BLPCAT is at ] and I don't know how I could better set it out than as given there. EEng (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone might want to notify the Schools WikiProject as well. See, for example, List of Old Wykehamists. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I added to the article structure guidelines that list items must have inline citations, especially BLPs. If this is insufficient, please let the project know. I'm off on wikibreak now. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That list of Wykehamists illustrates some problems, but it also introduces a possible solution.

Problem 1: If permitted to, such lists will grow like weeds into sprawling, uncited messes. (For instance: List of people from New York City or List of University of Oxford people) Including this many names on the "people from" sections of any of these pages would obviously be inappropriate and create some WP:UNDUE problems by making it look like the most important thing about the college was the people who went there. (It's not exactly a "notable people" list, but for an example of lists done right, see The Hollywood Blacklist.)

Problem 2: If someone just wants a list of people affiliated with a place or institution or whatever, they cannot typically rely on Misplaced Pages lists because it is not practical for them to click through every single link on a page like this. If we want Misplaced Pages to be reliable, we have to put the citations on the pages where the information is, i.e. every page.

I think this demonstrates the need to treat these pages differently. It might make more sense to have a "Notable people" section on the page itself, but with stringent criteria to keep the list from growing out of control or creating the undue weight problems -- for instance, limiting the section to people whose affiliation with the institution is, in and of itself, notable. That would require coverage of the link between the two-- not just mention of it -- in reliable sources. That would keep the list down, but the section could also include a hatnote to "List of people from X," where anyone's name could be added, assuming it was accompanied with a citation. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like the community agrees that all this material should be accompanied by inline citations. I've gone ahead and tagged the offending material so we can pull together those citations in the near future or strike it if no one bothers.

So have we reached a resolution on this? I don't want to put words in anyone's mouths, but I also don't want to leave this active on the noticeboard if we've reached a consensus.— Bdb484 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, there is certainly no consensus. You brought this here from Talk:Harvard University after four other editors disagreed with your belief that the lack of individual, inline citations for each entry on that article's list of notable faculty, staff, and alumni justified your wholesale deletion of the entire list. Having followed the conversation (but not reviewing it now, so I invite any corrections) I believe the situation is:

(1) There is disagreement (with at least several editors on each side) about whether an inline citation is required for each entry in a university "Notable people" list, where each entry is itself a link to an article covering that person stating -- and presumably sourcing, though gaps are always possible -- that fact. The arguments for no-inline-cite-required include:

• WP:BLPCAT, though oddly written, seems to say that membership of a person in a list or category, where that person has an article on him or her, may be supported by sources found in the article on that person without requiring that the cite be repeated beyond its appearance in the article on the person. Please note no one is saying that no cite is needed; rather the question is whether the cite may appear just once -- in the person's article -- versus needing to be repeated, as an inline cite, in another article which merely lists the person as an alumnus or whathaveyou. Discussion here:
• Though alumni/faculty status could -- like anything else -- conceivably become in a bone of contention in some cases, on the spectrum of potential for angry controversy this ranks low
• Allowing the supporting source to appear just once -- in the person's article -- rather than twice -- in the person's article and in the list -- centralizes scrutiny of the source and, if it happens to be missing, means that supplying it just once (in the person's article) supplies it everywhere it's expected to be.

The arguments for inline-cite-required include

• Assertions that BLP requires it without, despite repeated requests, addressing the arguments above that that's not true

(2) Except for you, even those who do think inline cites ought to be required for list entries do not propose that the lack of such cites justifies wholesale deletion of the list.

Since no one's addressed the argument regarding BLPCAT (other than to call it "nonsensical"), I don't think we can say consensus has been reached.

EEng (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad I asked. I think the idea of centralizing scrutiny of the source is interesting, but I'm not sure that it doesn't present its own problems. If, as mentioned above, a reader simply wants just a list of novelists from the United States and wants to make sure it's reliable, do we really want them to force them to click through to 1,223 pages just so that we can centralize the vetting of sources? — Bdb484 (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think the reason no one has followed up on your BLPCAT issue is that no one can find anything in there saying what you're arguing.

BLPCAT says "'Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers" and that its principles apply equally to lists. But you're making it say something that it doesn't, by:

1. mistaking the observation that categories don't carry disclaimers for a principle, rather than a fact that informs the principles;
2. extending that nonexistent "principle" to lists and assuming that a lack of disclaimers eliminates the need for citations
3. overlooking a critical difference between categories and lists, i.e., that categories do not carry disclaimers because they cannot carrry disclaimers -- there just isn't a way to do it in WP.

All of that makes a lot of leaps that I don't think most other editors are willing to make. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

We simply do not use other articles as sources, that's basic policy and overrides anything in a guideline. Among other reasons, articles get rewritten and sections and sources disappear. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - WP policies are clear on this: All material in all WP articles (and lists and categories) must be verifiable, per WP:Verifiability. That means citations (footnotes) must be supplied. Referring to other WP articles or lists is not sufficient. Although it is possible to find other articles without citations, that is not an excuse to avoid providing citations when requested. Per WP:BURDEN, the burden is on the editor wishing to include the material to provide the citations. Before removing uncited material, it is polite to post a notice and wait a couple of weeks before removing uncited material (but it is even more polite to look for citations before removing). --Noleander (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the formatting of the citations: it would look more aesthetic if the footnotes are at the end of each sentence, or the end of each paragraph (rather than next to each name). See WP:CITEBUNDLE for examples on how to do that. --Noleander (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I asked for an explanation of how BLPCAT is supposed to apply to this, and said that I had read the article talk page discussion on the subject, but was answered with the assertion that it cannot be explained better than that. That being the case, then it doesn't apply. — I'm a lawyer and I've been practicing law for over 25 years and I'm both trained and experienced in wringing (some might say strangling, but I wouldn't) every drop of meaning out of a statute, contract, insurance policy, or other rule. (Heck, I even understood where Bill Clinton was coming from when he disputed the meaning of the word "is".) But BLPCAT does not have anything — zero, nada, nothing — to do with sourcing. WP:CIRCULAR is the rule here (and thanks to Dougweller for the reminder of where to find it). Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Trust my conclusions -- I'm an attorney -- I gather you're not a litigator or if you are, you reserve that form of argument for the most desperate situations since (given that in most two-party disputes 50% or fewer of the attorneys making such a statement can be correct) it's singularly unconvincing. To really build others' confidence in your powers of logic, statutory construction, and linguistic parsing you might start by reconciling your statement "BLPCAT does not have anything — zero, nada, nothing — to do with sourcing" with BLPCAT's reference to the article text and its reliable sources. In the meantime...

• No one is proposing using WP as a source, so WP:CIRCULAR has nothing to do with this. In fact none of this has been about what constitutes an adequate source.
• The only questions, I believe, have been

• (a) To what extent is a source, cited in support of a statement, required to be re-cited at other points where the statement is repeated? and
• (b) If an editor believes this requirement (to the extent there is one) is not being met, what is that editor justified in doing in response, particularly in terms of removal of material?

The discussion here (where Bdb484 brought it) loses its original context of Talk:Harvard University (where it started) and yet is an inappropriate place for clarification or modification of policy on the above questions across all articles (a more general forum such as Talk:BLP would make more sense). Combining that with the invisibility of the person who's supposed to be helping bring this to resolution, I don't see the point of continuing. EEng (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think BLPCAT applies to this issue. The BLPCAT policy is limited to lists/categories that could be considered disparaging, or that involve personal beliefs. Going to a college does not fit into those categories, so BLPCAT does not apply. However, note that BLPCAT, in spite of its name, does apply to lists as well as categories. BLPCAT indirectly relates to sourcing, to the extent that an editor must use really strong sources before putting a living person into a list or category that could be disparaging. --Noleander (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

See my post just above yours. EEng (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Disruption in Serer religion

• Serer religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

On 14 July 2012 User:Eladynnus tagged the Serer religion as WP:POV without an edit summary and left a message on the article's talk page suggesting the Serer culture is not as sophisticated as being portrayed here, see POV issues discusion. In that discussion, they also accused me of deliberately presenting inaccurate information and said they needs a French speaker to evaluate all Serer articles and sources. Apparently they had an issue with some images which are actually Serer pictographs. I have told them in that discussion (several times) to be bold and edit the article if they have alternative reliable sources. Instead, they have resulted in edit wars with me by placing tags here, here and here. Even an administrator in that discussion told them their tagging is unjustified, yet they still continued placing tags. I even added an additional ref to the section they take issue with just to keep the peace (better seen here) but their actions have continued (see diffs above). Note also that since this issue started an IP all of a sudden appeared from nowhere and placed a speedy deletion template on the Serer religion article which I have removed here. As of todate, Eladynnus has made no attempt to edit the article other than placing tags (see their contribution history ). Apparently, they are waiting for a French speaker to evaluate all Serer articles and sources (see the discussion above). I've told them I have never heard of that, and Wiki's articles cannot be hijacked in that way. The article is fully referenced and they are free to go through the references. With respect, if they cannot read French, that is their problem not mine. Please would someone intervene in this because this issue is getting out of hand. Note that I have also posted a message to another editor who mistakenly reverted my edits without seeing the previous reference I added, and saying my edit summary was contradictory to the templates I removed .

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Tamsier (talk · contribs)
• Eladynnus (talk · contribs)

Eladynnus should be bold and improve the article if they take issue with a section and introduce RS. I have repeatedly told them to be bold and that I do NOT own these articles and anyone is free to edit them. However, disruption and drive-by-tagging of Wiki articles is not encouraged.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes .

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Serer religion}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

When I first saw their tags and the discussion they opened up in the article's talk page, I have repeatedly told them to assume good faith and be bold and improve the articles if they have other reliable sources that supports their claim . So far, they have made no attempt to improve the article other than tagging it. I have also added an additional source regarding the images they take issue with just to keep the peace , but as you can see, they have added back the POV and disputed fact templates on the article .

• How do you think we can help?

With respect, these tags do not belong to this article. All the previous disputes with actual contributors to this article were resolved. If Eladynnus believes otherwise, they should be bold and edit parts of what they take issue with by adding RS to support their claim. I have told them this many times which they have not done. Wiki articles cannot be hijacked, or waite for a French speaker who may or may not turn up to do their work for them. As such these templates should be removed and Eladynnus should be made aware that what they are doing is disrupting the project. They can go through all the Serer related articles under Category Serer people and evaluate them. I have no problem with that, but kidnapping them (per their remark on the disccussion above and elsewhere) is not permitted per Wiki policy.

Tamsier (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Serer religion discussion

First of all, you don't need to specify an edit summary when tagging articles. Electric Catfish 15:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Electriccatfish2 for your feedback. Perhaps you don't have to but it is considered good practice, wouldn't you agree? Tamsier (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually did include edit summaries in all of my subsequent restorations of the tags 1 2 3. Eladynnus (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Eladynnus, do you believe the entire article is non-neutral, or that specific sections are? If sections, which ones? - Jorgath (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that all of Tamsier's articles are written in a sunny "they believe this-and-this" style which is reminiscent of D&D supplements. The Serer religion article is a good example of this style. I also think that he is attempting to "Sererize" articles about Senegal and The Gambia by "laying claim" to certain ethnic groups, inserting references to the Serer wherever possible, exaggerating the importance of Serer articles by rating the pages himself, and trying to make general discussions of Senegal specifically about the Serer (here). I think the article needs to be rewritten, but due to its sprawl and the way that Tamsier insults those he disagrees with I don't see that happening. Eladynnus (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a situation where an {{expert-subject}} tag might have been more appropriate. Although Tammsier seems to have expertise on the Serer, would you mind standing back and letting another expert evaluate this case as a solution to the dispute? - Jorgath (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jorgath for your contribution. I have absolutely no problem in standing back and letting another review the whole article and any Serer related article as far as I am concerned. In fact, the more the merrier and I have told Eladynnus that in the article's talk page. As far as I can guage with any degree of certainty, Eladynnus's objection is the Serer pictographs (images). Although they have placed the POV template at the top of the article indicating they take issue with the article (as well as the fact template under cosmology section), I'm yet to ascertain what they find to be POV, perhaps Eladynnus can explain. But as far as standing back, absolutely no problem. The more editors and eyes the better. Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Great! Eladynnus, would getting expert eyes on the article be an acceptable resolution for you? - Jorgath (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be good, but I also believe that Tamsier's activities need to be closely monitored by third parties as he has been banned in the past for sockpuppeting and attacking other editors. Eladynnus (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to invite Drmies to this discussion before anything is done as he has interacted with Tamsier in the past and may be able to shed some more light on this subject. Eladynnus (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Drmies supported the original removal of the tag because my most immediate issue was with a section detailing "raampa", a writing system which I and JSTOR had never heard of, and which only had a crank's site as a source. Since the NPOV tag is not for that sort of issue, it was probably right that it be removed at that point. Later I articulated my NPOV concerns more clearly and found the appropriate tag for the raampa dispute, but Tamsier seems to believe that any tags are vandalism and has been posting threats, insults, and ultimatums on the talk page ever since. As you can see from my links above, I've had to restore these tags several times (including once where he didn't mention it in the edit summary 1). Eladynnus (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I see that Tamsier has added a tag to an article which was only written by me, Peasant leagues (Brazil). Judging from the nasty comment on the talk page and his own attitude toward tags, I can hardly believe that this was done in good faith, although I'll be happy to develop the article further before removing the tag. Eladynnus (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Please leave the behavioral issues off of this; the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for content disputes only. If you have concerns about Tamsier's behavior, there are other forums for that. As for your other concerns, I believe that an expert evaluating the page would of course evaluate the raampa aspect too. Below is my proposed resolution. - Jorgath (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Jorgath makes a good point. Eladynnus, comments on Tamsier are not for this venue, even though I have plenty of problems with Tamsier's behavior. Tamsier, if you wish to improve our relationship, start by dividing these long sections into shorter paragraphs, s'il vous plait. ;)

  I have no expertise on the subject matter and not much interest, right now, to become an expert, but allow me an observation: I don't see yet that anyone has addressed the language issue and I'd like to state the obvious. Tamsier is obviously correct in pointing out that not knowing French is not their problem. Whatever the French wiki does or does not do is irrelevant here, but citations are citations, no matter which language they are. Having read over the entire talk page again, I find it striking that none of these POV accusations actually state specifically which statement(s) or section(s) or image(s) are supposed to be not-neutral. If the taggers which to make a case for the tags, they should start by making a case for the tags, rather than just play "revert" with an original unexplained tag. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution

I propose that the POV tag at the top of the article be replaced by an {{expert-subject}} template with appropriate parameters filled. The in-section tag should be left in place so as to help guide any expert(s) to the locus of the dispute. Both of you would then step back from the article until such time as expert attention has been given to it. Would this be acceptable to both of you? Drmies hasn't yet weighed in, but would you be OK with this resolution too? - Jorgath (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I have no problem with that. Tamsier (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Sure--I don't see much of a problem with that either provided that there is some specificity to it, and that someone on the talk page explains exactly what the problem is. Funny thing is, for all I know Tamsier is somewhat of an expert here. If the only problem is "does this French source verify the information?" then I find the argument for the tag rather weak. Drmies (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If that's actually the only problem, I read French nearly fluently. - Jorgath (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I would love to hear what the actual problem is. FWIW, I'm a talented and experienced French kisser and if properly imbibed can recite Boris Vian. Drmies (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Comment - I'm just saying yes here to keep the peace, although I agree pretty much with Drmies observations. I see no justifiable reason for tagging this article but if others think otherwise, then there is no problem.Tamsier (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• I support this. Eladynnus (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • You were asked a question above as to what you find to be POV or non-neutral about the article. Do you want to address that in the relevant section? I'm sure it will help others including myself because I still haven't a clue other than your objection with images.Tamsier (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• I have changed the tag over as per the proposal. I'll leave this open as to Eladynnus' answer to the POV question for a little while, although I encourage them to post that to the article talk page instead/as well. - Jorgath (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Jorgath--let me propose something here as well. If there are no specific indications of where and how the article is not partial (indications that cannot be derived from opinions about Tamsier or extrapolations from a set of other articles), then there shouldn't be a tag at all. I want Eladynnus to put his money where his mouth his, if you'll pardon my French. Drmies (talk) 04:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I looked at some of these articles a while ago and was not happy about what seemed to be exaggerated claims. I certainly saw some interpretations by French authors being put forward as fact and made some minor changes, which Tamsier agreed to. Specifically these were archaeological interpretations of prehistoric artefacts deducing that they showed certain aspects of religion existed much longer ago than any would be expected, and from my studies of English speaking archaeologists I know that these interpretations would in many cases not have been entertained by them.(Sorry, this is a clumsy way of putting what I see as the problem). I would guess that the problems I saw exist elsewhere in related articles, ie interpretations being put forward as fact. A large part of the problem may simply be that only one archaeologist has studied these cultures, and that archaeologist may have an approach that other archaeologists would not share. There's really no way around that except to make sure that the articles make it clear these are interpretations. Of course, there may be criticism of Gravrand somewhere which would be useful. An example of the problem I see is States headed by ancient Serer Lamanes. Gravrand here is basically saying that Serer culture is 10,000 years old. I've read quite a bit of archaeology, and I've never seen a claim that an existing culture is anywhere near that old. Claims that the concept of reincarnation can be shown to have existed that long ago I find equally dubious. I don't know the solution to this, although it would be nice if there were any other experts besides Issa Laye Thiaw, Cheikh Anta Diop and Henry Gravrand. And for the record, I don't consider that Alan Rake, used at States headed by ancient Serer Lamanes as a source for this long time depth, to be a reliable source and I'm bothered that a non-archaeologist would be used for this. Dougweller (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
      • With this edit Tamsier added considerable content. Specifically, he wrote "They were settled people at the time of the Neolithic Era, about 10,000 years ago". This is cited to page 50 of this book. Can someone else comment on whether the source backs the claim, as I don't think it does. Dougweller (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
        • The Kingdom of Sine is claimed to be much older than the 14th century, see for instance Timeline of Serer history. The article says it was renamed in the 14th century. However, other sources contradict this. Islamic Society and State Power in Senegal: Disciples and Citizens in Fatick by Leonardo A. Villalón calls it "One of three Serer kingdoms to emerge between the fourteenth and the sixteenth centuries". And "A nomadic caste: the Fulani woodcarvers historical background and evolution M Dupire" - Anthropos, 1985 - JSTOR "In the case where a non-centralized society became a kingdom in the past (13th century), as among the bilineal Serer of Sine". I'm not convinced I don't see POV problems, specifically presenting a time depth as fact when other sources don't suggest this. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• If I may respond to Dougweller. You and I had this discussion before in the archaeological notice board. And as I said in that that thread, the Serers are mostly dominant in Senegal hence the reason why there are more French sources. Any edit that is made in reference to archaeological sources is made exactly in the light of archaeological evidence. Indeed there is little if not anything at all in the Serer religion article that actually deals with Serer archaeological sites. The article is mainly religious, just like any other religious article on English Misplaced Pages. I also think that you are forcusing too much on Gravrand which is fine and understandable because I have cited him where appropriate. But as I have told you before, there are several other sources (yes most of them in French) such as the works of Charles Becker ("Vestiges historiques, trémoins matériels du passé clans les pays sereer". Dakar. 1993. CNRS - ORS TO M); Cyr Descamps, Guy Thilmans & Y. Thommeret (Les tumulus coquilliers des îles du Saloum (Sénégal), Bulletin ASEQUA, Dakar, Université Cheikh Anta Diop) and many others by Descamps who carried out a detailed archaeological excavation back in the 1970s. You are free to rebuke Gravrand, Thiaw, Diop, or anyhbody else, but they are reliable sources and I have no problem if their is another reliable sources that says otherwise. As regards to the Bafour link you provided above, that was a citation error (a transitional error) as it is the work of Gravrand I am citing there. But since you and I have already had this dicussion before, and considering the fact that it was I who made that external link in good faith so that others can evaluate the sources themselves, I thought you would have realised that was an error on my part rather than trying to hold that against me here. This is the first time I realised that error since I expanded that article. And since you and I have had some conversations about history/archaeology, I would have appreciated a little note on my talk page the minute you realised the error. You are not obliged to do that of course, but it would have been appreciated. If I may now moved on to your next point (the Kingdom of Sine). Provided you know the history, there is nothing contradictory with the King of Sine article and the work of Villalón you cited above. 14th century means the 1300s which I'm sure you well know. And that renaming came via Maad a Sinig Maysa Wali Jaxateh Manneh (var : Maysa Wali Dione), the first member from the Guelowar dynasty to rule in Sine. Reading these two articles (Maysa Wali & Guelowar) would explain exactly what Villalón is talking about there. See also : Alioune Sarr, "Histoire du Sine-Saloum" (Sénégal), Introduction, bibliographie et notes par Charles Becker, (1986-87). As regards to the 15th century (1400s), that relates to another Serer kingdom (the Kingdom of Saloum) renamed during the reign of Mbegan Ndour who regined c. 1494. You may see the work of Abdou Boury Ba, "Essai sur l’histoire du Saloum et du Rip" (avant-propos par Charles Becker et Victor Martin), Bulletin de l'IFAN, tome 38, série B, numéro 4, octobre 1976. I find it rather offensive that I am being accused here of deliberately presenting inaccurate infor. I would not necessarily take great offense to it coming Eladynnus, but when it comes from another editor like Dougweller, that my integrity is put into question, I take great offense to that. I may be very vocal and sometimes rather stubborn, but I respect the the field of history and African history far to much to do anything that tarnishes the profession. As of today, I will create no more African articles in English Wiki. Thank you all for you contribution. Tamsier (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems unnecessary. I don't think it is your integrity but perhaps your zeal, and we are all careless at times. I am a bit uncertain what you are saying about the Kingdom of Sine, but the articles do seem to suggest it is much, more earlier than the 14th century and was simply renamed then, whereas the sources I see don't support that. And as we've agreed, I think, "They were settled people at the time of the Neolithic Era, about 10,000 years ago"." should clearly make it Gravrand's opinion. I don't know of any other claims for a 10,000 year old culture and I find this one extremely dubious. And as I've suggested, one problem is too few opinions which then makes the articles pov. I'm sure that there are sources that provide alternative suggestions as to the origins of these groups. Dougweller (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the article in the timeline has already mentioned the "proto-Serers", therefore there is nothing "dubious" at all. The work of Gravrand is backed by Becker, Descamps, etc. You are free to read them. As regards to the Kingdom of Sine, it is just as reported by the prevailing view on the history of Sine and Saloum, and that is the work of Gravrand's "Cosaan" and "Pangool" or Alioune Sarr's "Histoire du Sine-Saloum", contributed to by Becker. You would be hard press to find any scholar writing in detail about the history of Sine or Saloum without reference to Sarr's work or Gravrand's. As I said before, it was renamed in the 14th century (before 1400) during the Guelowar period. However, if you want to go further back to it history, you will need to go back to the Lamanic period. See Alioune Sarr "Histoire du Sine Saloum", you may also see the work of Niokhobaye Diouf ("Chronique du royaume du Sine", Suivie de notes sur les traditions orales et les sources écrites concernant le royaume du Sine par Charles Becker et Victor Martin. Bulletin de l'Ifan (1972)) and Henry Gravrand's ("La civilisation Sereer Cosaan", les orgines vol.1 (1983) & "La civilisation sereer Pangool", vol 2. (1990). Tamsier (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

EDIT - For the record I have corrected the citation error raised above by Dougweller and added a ref to a claim made by another editor .Tamsier (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Tamsier went to WP:FTN about phoenicia.org, a fringe website that also hosts some copyvio, and in my reply to him I've raised the issue of the name "Raampa pictgraphs", a name that seems to only appear at phoenicia.org and our articles. These are normally referred to as rock art of the Tassili n'Ajjer or Tassili n'Ajjer rock art - there is quite a bit of literature on this on Google books, for instance. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I thought I was clear that I don't agree with the expert tag being added (or rather only the expert tag). I'd like to see at least the "too few opinions" added. It's a bit more complicated for me as I see "Raampa pictographs" as at best OR and possibly POV. I don't think this is resolved. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it is also worth looking at the Fringe theory notice board following a query that I have opened . Dougweller also seem to assume that I have I said the rock arts of the Tassili n'Ajjer are called Raampa. I have never said the rock arts of the Tassili n'Ajjer are called Raampa. I challenge them to prove otherwise. Any reference that I have ever made regarding the Tassili n'Ajjer is in reference the Serer Pangool, not Raampa. Please do not confuse the two and please do not misrepresent me as you did above and in your edit summary here. Tamsier (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    • QuestionGood faith, please. I've asked what these "Raampa pictographs" are. You are the editor who has added them to articles. They don't seem to exist outside Misplaced Pages and a fringe website. If these aren't the rock art at Tassili n'Ajjer I'm sorry, but you haven't yet explained what they are. We shouldn't be using a name for them that doesn't exist in reliable sources. Where are they, what do reliable sources actually call them or how do they describe them? I thought this was a simple question, but it doesn't seem to be. We shouldn't be calling them the Raampa pictographs, that's a form of original research - we shouldn't be the source of a name for these. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I am so sorry you are having difficulties understanding me all of a sudden. Since I have explained and told you twice what they are called at the query I raised at the Fringe theory notice board (inc. the article), following the edit summary you left at Serer religion , not to mention citing a reliable source , I get bored having to repeat my self over and over again. Read the query I've raised at the Fringe theory notice board where I have not only told you what they are called, but possible reason why they are not coming up on the net etc. Just because something is not visible on the net does not mean it is false. If you still cannot/do not want to believe me (your choice), then buy the ref. If you cannot afford it, then borrow it from your local library. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe you live in the UK? If you do, then there is place called the British Library, in London, they have all the books that have ever been published (most anyway), go there and request it. Oh by the way, I am striking out my comment above regarding not creating any more African articles. There is more at stake here, and I have never bowed down to bullies. Provided I haven't broken any rules which warrants my departure, no amount of houding will force my departure from this project. Considering your long history of adding unsourced material to Wiki articles , I am somewhat surprised you all of a sudden became the "guardian of referencing". The article and all Serer /Senegambian /African related articles I've initiated or edited are referenced and the references support the claim. Even another editor told you so in reference to Serer. If this behaviour continues, I will take this to AN/I and all the way to ArbCom if necessary. I'll stop here for now and save it for the next forum if absolutely necessary. Tamsier (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead. Well done for finding the 2nd edit I ever made to an article, my 3rd edit ever (I've made over 40,000 edits to articles since, many adding sources) , and turning it into a "long history of adding unsourced material." And I've told you before you wrote the post above that I also like books and have a good collection myself. You read my post saying that at FTN on the 26th and replied to me. There you seem to be saying that Gravrand does not refer to them as the "Raampa pictographs" but speaks of Serer symbols and accused me of various vile activities. I'm not saying these don't exist. I am asking a pretty simple question, where are these located? I'm also asking if this rock art has a name besides a location, in French if it's only in French, if English an English name is used. I'm disappointed that you are being so confrontational - I'm certainly not bullying or hounding you, I am trying to understand you and these articles. I really would prefer not to be involved in this at all, and had dropped it before this DRN came up. Seeing others concerned I felt I should comment. And now out of the blue I have another editor coming to me expressing concern that there is "(undue weight) of Serer people related content across many African articles." Not a complaint about their content in this case, just undue weight and I have no comment on that at the moment at least. Before I start editing and changing "Raampa pictographs" to something else, I hope you will help me come up with something appropriate and reliably sourced. I have no idea why you think I believe everything needs to be on the web, I can assure you that I've told several editors that this is definitely not the case. One other thing, I don't think Rake, Alan, "New African yearbook" is a reliable source by our criteria for history, except perhaps recent history, but I'd like your comments on that. Dougweller (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Quick comment on "something is not visible on the net does not mean it is false"--I've looked using ProQuest, JSTOR, EbscoHost, Expanded Academic ASAP, General OneFile, Article First, ECO, Ebooks, WorldCat, and a couple of others, and what I've learned is that "Raampa" is the alternate spelling of a movie called Rampa (film). There is nothing else--nothing at all. Combine this with the complete absence of the term from Google books and there is no other possible solution: it does not exist. This is not "it's not visible on the net": it's not visible in any database. That these searches are done via the net is immaterial. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment For the purposes of transparency it is note worthy to have a look at the comments that has been going on between Dougweller and I including diffs to relevant pages . Sadly this is now outside the remits of this forum and I will be escalating it in due course. I know Jorgath is on Wiki break so hopefully when he comes back he can reach a decision and put a closure to this. As for the other issues, they will be filed in the appropriate forum. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I was about to save a post earlier saying something similar, but held it back to see if a last appeal to Tamsier would be successful, but unfortunately it failed and he wants (I left out the 'me' here) to be desysopped and said he will not answer my question about Serer pictographs. I don't see much chance of resolving the issues here. Of course there are some places where an expert would be great, but equally there are places where it is either too few opinions(and all we need to do is about some other perspectives), or where the issues revolve upon NPOV and sources(such as the claim for Raampa writing at Saafi people). I don't think there's any one size fits all solution. I would say that where appropriate NPOV tags for these articles should be added to sections, not the whole article. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I think you meant I (Tamsier) want you (Dougweller) desysopped. You are the administrator I am not. So I will assume that was a human error. Furthermore, all the questions posed to me by Dougweller including in my talk page and at FTN (see links above) have been answered. What became apparent to me was that, Dougweller understood the answer I gave and repeatedly kept giving him, but he was playing games, but must of all, wasting my time (see the diff to my talk page). Everything that I have said about Dougweller, is backed up with a diff. The source cited is reliable and verifiable which he can easily verify either by buying it or going to his local library (or inter library loans). The source has also been peer reviewed (Ps - Af). It is not for Dougweller to set policy. He also does not know the qualifications of any of the scholars other than what he thinks. If he has reliable sources that supports his claim, he should cite them in the relevant section. I have no idea why he thinks I would waste my time adding false references to article (which is exactly what he was accusing me of) when I have several books, scientific work about the subject. That doesn't make sense to me at all. Even Jorgath (who speaks French) told Dougweller he has gone through the Serer articles and the sources cited by large supports the claim. I will not speak for Jorgath, I'm sure Jorgath can do that by himself when he is back and if he needs to. My big issues with Dougweller will be addressed in the proper forum, but I think it is material that I highlight these points here as well. Tamsier (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• @ Drmies from your observation and experience, is every non-English word on the internet? Also have you tried Serer symbols (which is English - from Greek, symbol I mean) as stated to Dougweller at FTN and my talk talk including the Serer religion talk page (before Dougweller)? That Rampa film is different from Raampa. Perhaps spelt the same or similar but totally different. That happens.Tamsier (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I left out the 'me', but it was pretty obvious what I meant. I do not think Tamsier is adding false references(although like me he makes mistakes and has mistakenly added the wrong reference before). I do think that he states as fact what should be attributed to an author as their belief or interpretation, and I think he isn't right about the Gravrand article as Gravrand is not an expert on writing, the journal is not about writing, and the article in question doesn't seem to have made much impact, and certainly not whatever Gravrand said about Raampa writing. I don't know what he means by the reference to the film unless he's suggesting I can't tell the difference between the film and whatever Gravrand is writing about. Ah, I have probably responded enough, I'm being pushed into defending myself instead of talking about the content issues and that's not the way to go, other than to ask Tamsier where he answered by questions about the location of these Raampa symbols, which I thought he'd refused to answer. Dougweller (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Missed Drmies' comment, striking mine. Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Tamsier, you misunderstand. "That Rampa film is different from Raampa"--yes, that is what I said. What I also said is that not a single one of those databases contains the word besides that one different use. Your question, "is every non-English word on the internet?" is a ruse. I don't know and I don't care whether it is or isn't. What I do know is that no scholarly database that I searched even mentions the word. No articles in print (or not in print, or out of print) in journals indexed by any of those databases mentions the word. That's nothing to do with the internet, as I explained above, and as you surely understand. I've asked interlibrary loan for that 1973 article and I'm anxiously awaiting it: if it mentions the word it would be the only one in the world that I know of. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to reiterate what I have said on your talk page that I have the 1971 paper on Serer symbols and Raampa but since you have had no luck finding it on the net, Raampa can be deleted if that is the consensus, no problem. Apart from the images, it is just one sentence in the few articles it in. It is not even a stand alone article, so no big deal. Will await Jogarths return. Tamsier (talk) 09:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• EDIT I've removed the one sentence remark from Serer religion and changed image head. Left the tags there. The person who added them can remove them or justify their inclusion if they still take issue. Tamsier (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Resource-based economy

• Resource-based economy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The article currently states that the term "Resource-based economy" is used by the technocracy movement. The term exists in one paper on one website related to the organization. I think that one article by one member doesn't make a whole organisation, and that you therefore can't say that the organization as a whole uses the term. User Earl King Jr disagrees.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• OpenFuture (talk · contribs)
• Earl_King_Jr. (talk · contribs)

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Resource-based economy}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Discussed on the talk page: Talk:Resource-based_economy#Google_books_survey

• How do you think we can help?

Providing opinions.

OpenFuture (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Resource-based economy discussion

Unless a source can be tied directly to it being organizational level, then I would refrain from attributing it as such. I've read essays about technocracy and I do not think the term 'resource based economy' comes up often, and when it is used the term is often literal. I think we need sources which state this more clearly before the assertion can be made, since it is a point of contention. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a direct source which uses the term resource-based economy from one of their essay writers which was written years ago and still in their official information presentation

Their Faq's material mentions something close to the term also and and and and . Earl King Jr. (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Long post, so short one sentence version: It's an essay which uses the term and doesn't make use of it in a way that alters it in a meaningful way. Long version: Here's the problem, its just a term to describe an already existing idea, its not as if Technocracy advocates created the term or use it in a way which is unique, novel or different in meaning then what is already established. Its the equivalent of saying George Washington spoke of a monarchy, but America is not a monarchy. The term is used to express an idea. Price System is different though. According to the essay, which is the only one directly mentioning it, economies use resources. In the essay it refers to natural resources, non-renewable ones and to a lesser extent environmental ones. At the most basic level, everything is a 'resource-based economy', water, air, labor, metals, soil, animals, forests, everything. Whether I trade my knowledge, customer service, sweat equity, livestock, anything, I expect to be rewarded accordingly. Here the essay fails to explain anything. It doesn't get to the point of how 'resources' would be dealt with other then 'efficiently' and hope agreements can be made. It also suggests needless waste and destruction for money would be eliminated as a result of this.

The essay may just be a general idea, but that's its crutch, it doesn't explain anything and the details are left behind. Other ideas like eliminating competing products, mass production and reworking logistics is a common idea. Why have an Ipad and 10 other types of tablets out there? Why not just make one superior product and issue them out for so many 'credits' equivolent to their impact and cost? I've seen other essays from technocracy sites which show that everyone in the technate of North America would get the equivalent of $10 million a year in credits as part of their 'fair share' of 'output'. Leading to a realization that its enough for a home, a car and just about everything one needs to live comfortably with everyone else and still have enough 'whim' money for most individuals barring the 'private yacht, jet, three mansions and a pool of caramel sauce' types. That would be an unsustainable drain on resources and could not be maintained. Technocracy believes that waste is bad and can be fixed with calculated action and superior technology. Any economy, including a technate would be 'resource-based' because we live in a world of broad 'resources', natural or otherwise. I don't think it is fair to say 'Technocracy uses this term', because its just a term in some essay of unremarkable importance and scope, it cannot even grasp the term of the word itself. I can blast the essay all night on its faults and logical issues, but I do not believe this one instance of the term appearing is akin to labeling it as a founding idea, principal or even recognized use. Its just another term, and the essay doesn't even understand the implications of the term, it is undue to make the assertion based on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The title of the information essay is Accounting For Nature:Moving Toward-Resource-Based Economics and it mentions the term resource-based economy in the body of the essay. It does not have to be a novel appreciation of the word. It fits into the same usage as the other two fringe groups, the way it is being used.

Please give a link for the thing you quote. The statement quote you made about the subject I've seen other essays from technocracy sites which show that everyone in the technate of North America would get the equivalent of $10 million a year in credits as part of their 'fair share' of 'output'. Thanks. I assume it is from their official site but have never read that information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

"Their Faq's material mentions something close to the term also" - No they don't. They use the word "resources". None of the links talk in any way of a resource-based economy. You can argue that what the technocracy movement wants is the same as what The Venus Project calls a resource.based economy, sure. I agree they are similar (or even equivalent). But this is about whether The Technocracy Movement uses the term "Resource-based economy". And they don't. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

How can you say that when it is the title of the essay, and the very phrase is used in the body of the essay? Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I quoted you about what you said regarding to the FAQ. Why do you think I meant the essay? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me ask you this Earl King Jr., how does the term 'resource-based economy' fit into the technocracy narrative? Its seldom used, relegated to one essay, which the term seems to be a vague description serving a key purpose to highlight problems better addressed in other essays. The website itself has barely 300 hits for many of its articles, has little formal presence on the internet and few materials to evaluate. 'Resource-based economy' may be used in one essay, but it is not prominent or founding idea. Using a term or expressing an idea is different from associating with it. For the purpose of the article, 'resource-based economy' should be of importance to technocracy, it does not seem to be so. More evidence then a single essay hosted on a rarely viewed website which poorly details the matter is not enough to make so strong of a connection. It seems undue, like associating the 'Federalists' with 'monarchy' even though they do not support or base their views on some form of it, a term to describe something does not equate to being, supporting or holding those ideals as at an organizational level. Its like the 'pursuit of happiness', its not sourced to just the letter in which it was proposed, it was inserted in to the core of government and the American psyche. Like the 'Free market', the terms are not one off creations, they are ingrained and representative. For technocracy this applies to 'Price System', but I do not see 'resource-based economy' as even coming close. Its a term which serves a purpose, and does not, by itself, rise to the level of importance for technocracy. It seems that this essay from technocracy is actually more about the 'Venus project' then technocracy itself. Simply because it argues the same points, with the same term, and in a similar vague manner which is relative to technocratic ideals. Though technocracy's price system of 'credits' seems to counter the 'resource-based economy' ideals put forth by the essay.

No matter how I look at it, this is a case of WP:UNDUE. One essay held on a low traffic, obscure subject on a relatively obscure organization and that term is identical in form an usage to its proposal by the Zeitgeist movement. It was not a founding principal of technocracy in its 1930's prime and the organization is only a shadow of its former self since the 1950's. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition, ChrisGualtieri, consider the fact that the guy who wrote the essay was in association with Jacque Fresco at the time the article was written. So it isn't unreasonable to think he borrowed the term under influence from conversations with Fresco.

In addition, Earl King Jr., it appears your argument is guilty of the fallacy of composition or perhaps hasty generalization. If you will, take a look at those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biophily (talk • contribs) 06:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Your assumptions of connections "it isn't unreasonable to think" are WP:OR and not suitable. One paper from one guy would be WP:UNDUE. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What's your point? I'm saying the guy used a term borrowed from another source who uses it frequently, and then used it in his article, and this is no reason to think it is representative of all of Technocracy. You might follow the argument and see it is Earl King Jr. with opposing views. No original research in articles, not in discussion.--Biophily (talk) 06:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have a consensus on this. But I would like a DRN volunteer confirmation on that, and we can then update the article. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer here. Looks like a consensus to me. Go ahead and update the article, and if we missed someone who objects, they can follow the procedure at WP:BRD.

Is this resolved? Does anyone object to closing this? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably not a consensus. But close it. Some users here, perhaps two or more, have a history of favorable edits to Mr. Fresco and being negative to his influences. I don't care what the decision is now. Zeitgeist probably should not be listed as using the term now either since the groups no longer are connected and have renounced each other and one uses another term for the same thing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The content containing technocracy and such have been deleted already, and TechnoCracy uses it in another way then others. We do not need to know who made the word. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Favorable edits to Mr. Fresco? Who's that? I don't think we have any bias about this topic, its just that it comes across as UNDUE, until more supporting information can be found its simply a matter of policy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Earl, it's you vs everyone else. That's pretty much the definition of a consensus. Your arguments are either incoherent or, like your latest comment, based on a wide assumption of bad faith and/or bias with everyone who doesn't agree with you. That doesn't hold up.

I've probably made "favorable edits" regarding Fresco as well, and I think he is a charlatan. But I'm able to lay aside my personal feelings when editing and follow Misplaced Pages policy. You need to try to do that as well. This has nothing to do with bias or anything like that. It has to do with only one thing: The fact that The Technocracy Movement does *not* use the term, and hence if Misplaced Pages claims that it does it's being incorrect.

Anyway, in the current version of the article, this discussion is moot. Let's see if the hatnote version get's to stay. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You want to get one more dig in? I am not being a dick about it. I said I did not care now. If there are editors trying to POV push, resisting that is not itself POV pushing, but working towards WP:NPOV. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but nobody here is POV-pushing, except you. I understand that you dislike either TVP or TZM or both very, very much, but that shouldn't translate into your editing. And to be honest I think only you understand why claiming that The Technocracy Movement uses the term when they do not makes a difference there. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Just can not resist putting words in peoples mouths and being a dick about this? Is there some part of I don't care because it was removed from the article days ago, that compels you to try and spit at other editors? The debate if one calls it that is mostly you doing put downs now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again, disagreeing with you about something is not an insult. You need to stop taking every discussion as a personal attack. I'm not putting anything in your mouth, aI'm not being a dick and I'm not spitting on you or putting you down. I'm trying to have a civilized constructive discussion with you, which will be impossible unless you are able to deal with the fact that people sometimes disagree with you. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria

• Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

The Formation section of Bulgaria article http://en.wikipedia.org/Bulgaria, which was in effect since 2006 was changed, with the date 681 eliminated from it. The users Ceco31,Gligan, Apcbg, ximhua & V3n0M93 disagreed with this change and expressed their opinion on the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bulgaria, quoting Encyclopedia Britanica, which clearly states that the beginning of Modern Bulgaria starts in 681 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84090/Bulgaria/42721/The-beginnings-of-modern-Bulgaria, therefore the date 681 should be retained in the Info box for accuracy purposes. Other arguments listed were that the creation of the Bulgarian language and alphabet happened in the X century Bulgaria, which was an integral part of the Formation of Bulgaria. The national symbols of Bulgaria - Lion also carried over. The dominant religion - Bulgarian Orthodox also carried over. Bulgarian identity and naming of the country and people was carried over. Thus, for historical accuracy the section should be renamed Formation with the dates 681 (First Bulgarian Empire) and 1185 (Second Bulgarian Empire) present. Also, examples were given with Poland, Serbia, Portugal, Spain, Germany which have a Formation section, which accurately shows the historical dates for those counties.

The above facts were rejected by Tourbillon, Chipmunkdavis and William Thweatt. When an attempt was being made for a compromise with them by offering them 3 options (by ximhua), it was rejected in a rude and uncivilized manner.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Ximhua (talk · contribs)
• Ceco31 (talk · contribs)
• Gligan (talk · contribs)
• Apcbg (talk · contribs)
• V3n0M93 (talk · contribs)
• Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs)
• William Thweatt (talk · contribs)
• Tourbillon (talk · contribs) 

Since there is clear difference of opinion we've offered 3 compromise options to the other party a) revert back to original 2006 version b) remove the section completely c) use the Formation section with the years 681 & 1185 in it.

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Http://en.wikipedia.org/Bulgaria}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

Yes, I've tried to have a civilized discussion by offering a number of compromises, yet this was met with rude comments and no desire to listen.

• How do you think we can help?

Convince the other party that when there is difference of opinion, it is best to compromise. For example removing this content completely.

Ximhua (talk) 01:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria discussion

To recapitulate the issue: the InfoBox originally had three date lines:

Formation
 - First Bulgarian Empire 681
 - Liberation from Ottoman rule 3 March 1878
 - Declaration of Independence 22 September 1908

And it was changed to:

Independence from the Ottoman Empire
 - Principality of Bulgaria 3 March 1878
 - Kingdom of Bulgaria 22 September 1908

The change was a shift from "Formation" to "Independence" and the removal of the top line "First Bulgarian Empire 681". The reason for deletion is that there is a dedicated article on First Bulgarian Empire, and thus including its start date in this article which focuses on modern Bulgaria is confusing for readers. Arguments for keeping the 681 date is that there is some continuity between the first B.E. and the modern states; and that the InfoBox is more useful to the reader with the additional information. Is that a correct summary of the issue?

For reference, here is the Germany (featured article) InfoBox:

Formation
 - Holy Roman Empire 2 February 962
 - Unification 18 January 1871
 - Federal Republic 23 May 1949
 - Reunification 3 October 1990

... and here is an InfoBox from Bolivia which uses the "Independence" approach:

Independence from Spain
 - Declared 6 August 1825
 - Recognized 21 July 1847
 - Current constitution 7 February 2009

And, summarizing the options listed earlier, there are four paths forward:

1. Use a "Independence" scheme, with 1878 & 1908
2. Use a "Formation" scheme, with 681, 1878 & 1908
3. Use a "Formation" scheme with 681 & 1185
4. Omit dates entirely from the InfoBox

Are there any other options? --Noleander (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

My first inclination is that Bulgaria should use a Formation scheme, including the 681 date. I base this on the InfoBoxes of Germany, Russia, Hungary, France, and Poland. All of those InfoBoxes use a Formation scheme, and reach back to the original pre-1000 AD states. Modern Bulgaria is rooted in an ancient state, and it seems like a diservice to the reader to use the fact that there was an independence event in 1878 to remove all pre-1878 formation dates from the InfoBox. I think the next step is to have editors who favor the "Independence" scheme (beginning at 1878) explain how they feel that is better for readers. --Noleander (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria is very different from Germany, France, and Russia. The three others have a direct state lineage going back to the dates mentioned on the infobox. At no time were they invaded and absorbed by another state (Hungary's exact history I am unclear on, I don't know whether a hungary existed in the Austrian Empire before it became Austria-Hungary or anything, Poland falls into the same boat as Bulgaria). The current Bulgaria claims cultural continuity from the previous Bulgarian kingdoms, and there are definitely cultural links. However, it is in no way the same state. Language, alphabets, etc. have nothing to do with statehood (and considering the wide differences between modern and medieval English, I doubt the modern Bulgarian language is the same as the older ones). The English speaking and writing countries of the world aren't English states. The many German speaking states aren't one state with the same formation history. Statehood is a political status. The First Bulgarian Empire (the 681 one) was conquered by the Byzantine Empire. Just under 200 years later, the Second one was established. However, in the late 14th century, this was conquered by the Ottoman Empire, into which it was completely absorbed. Compounding on this complete conquest, the Ottomans completely eliminated all the former structures, going so far as to for awhile eliminate any Bulgarian national consciousness completely. This lasted till the 19th century, where what is now Bulgaria was set up by a victorious Russia (with interference from other great powers).

There's no continuity of state at all between modern Bulgaria and the previous empires. Culture isn't defined by a state, and states don't define culture. The infobox is set up to show the development of the state. The state began in 1878. CMD (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not such a problem if the dates of early Bulgarian kingdoms are not mentioned, because the very introduction itself points out that a Bulgarian culture and state formed in the 7th century AD. It is a problem to include these Medieval states alongside the modern one in the infobox, as it would create the impression that they are a continuous political entity, while in fact they're not. Basically we have lack of information in the infobox (but present throughout the article) vs. information that provides the reader with an incorrect assumption. As CMD already said, there is no political continuity between 10th century and 14th century Bulgaria and the modern state. There is cultural continuity, but it also includes surviving Thracian customs - and if we follow this reasoning, some Thracian state-like entities should be included as well. Provided that this is not included in the demands of the other party, and yet again the fact that a few cultural items claimed by a state do not make it politically and legally connected with a previous one, the arguments about inclusion are hollow and are based only on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But I adopt the same tactic only this time to provide a decent example for infobox dates with India - it only includes Independence (1947) and Republic (1950). It is a featured article. - ☣Tourbillon 07:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Noleander, who has summarized the issue well. Also, Poland for example also had extensive occupation, as does Hungary, as does Serbia. Portugal and Spain also have experienced the same, yet for historical accuracy they do include all major dates of their history, in the info box. The main goal of the Info box is to present a brief, yet complete picture of the history of a country. As for continuity it is clearly stated in all major respected sources (Britanica is quoted, but I can quote more easily) that Modern Bulgaria clearly starts in 681, and there is continuity. After all a nation is defined by self identity, language, alphabet, religion, name & symbols. Political system and such are not very important, as dynasties change, monarchies change to a republic, etc. Political items can not be used for grounds to deny continuity of a country. (Ximhua (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

Furthermore to add, for example when Bulgaria was part of the Easter Roman Empire (Byzantium)for about 150 years, the Church remained largely independent, Aristocracy remained in the largest part (second Bulgarian Empire was founded by two Bulgarian aristocrats http://en.wikipedia.org/Peter_IV_of_Bulgaria, even Bulgaria was separated in its own Roman province called Bulgaria http://en.wikipedia.org/Bulgaria_%28theme%29 . During the Ottoman period, Bulgarians had thousands of schools, Monasteries continued to exist and maintain Bulgarian culture, even some Bulgarians were appointed as Princes of the Ottoman state like Alexander Bogoridi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/Alexander_Bogoridi ), thus clearly showing continuity. Bulgaria in 1878 was only possible as the Bulgarian nation continued to exist and maintain its national pillars under the Ottomans. One more point on political continuity, when the Communists came to power in Russia, they annihilated the Tsar and all of his ministers were either killed or sent abroad, the political and national system radically changed as well, with all governors replaced, the nation's elite was sent to prison camps, however who would say that this was not Russia. (Ximhua (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

Okay, so we have examples like India and Italy, where the dates in the InfoBox start in the modern era: 1947 and 1861 respectively. Based on that, it appears that the pattern used in WP is that older states are included in the InfoBox only if there is some continuity in name & locale & culture. For Italy & India it seems that the older states are omitted from those InfoBoxes because there was no unified political state referred to as "India" or "Italy" before their unification/independence. Contrasted with Germany, Poland, etc do have continuity of name & culture & language. So, the next question is: Does the modern Bulgarian state have continuity of name/culture/language with the older states First Bulgarian Empire and Second Bulgarian Empire? Let me ask another question of the "Independence" editors: In what ways were the 1st and 2nd Bulgarian Empires different than the post-1878 states? What differed? Language? Culture? Name? Locale? Was there a major discontinuity where the 1st or 2nd Bulgaria Empires (in a generic sense, not a political-entity sense) stopped being "bulgaria"? If so, what was that discontinuity? The fact that it was under Ottomon rule from 1396 to 1878? If so, during that era, did the Ottomon Empire designate the bulgarian region in any specific way? During the Ottomon era, did the residents of the bulgarian region speak bulgarian? Refer to themselves as bulgarian? Have a bulgarian culture? --Noleander (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The modern Bulgarian state does preserve the name of older states. Modern Bulgarian language is based on Old Church Slavonic, something like Latin for Eastern Orthodox Slavs, and was codified in the 19th century. The question about culture is really thin - while much of recorded Bulgarian culture from the Middle Ages has survived, there is also a lot of Islamic/Ottoman influence during the 500 years of occupation.

Not only is the modern state different from the empires, but the two empires themselves had numerous differences. The ruling dynasties were different. The capital was different. The historical gap between the first and the second empire lasted for about 165 years - from 1018 to 1184-6. They were, however, closely related in terms of geography - at their greatest extent, they both controlled more or less the same territories. The Ottoman conquest of the Balkans basically erased all attributes of the Bulgarian state - its ruling dynasty, the nobility, the clergy and the arts. Even before the conquest, the Second empire had disintegrated to a number of smaller kingdoms. National consciousness ceased to exist and even the early rebels (haiduks) were not fighting for a national cause. Even if culture survived, the entire region of what was Bulgaria was defined by the Ottomans simply as Rumelia, populated with Christians regardless of their ethnicity and culture. Local residents certainly spoke Bulgarian, folk art was in Bulgarian, but apparently none of this had cohesion given the lack of central government, a truly Bulgarian elite, or national policies. It's quite obvious what the situation was if the Bulgarian National Revival was started by a book that had to remind the locals that they actually have a past. The arguments about symbols are irrelevant, because Bulgarian symbols such as the lion are shared with other European countries.

And finally, post-1878 Bulgaria is only based on a portion of Medieval Bulgaria's territories; its capital is different, and, unlike the older states, it has a constitution, bureaucracy, separation of powers, a legal system, a parliament and national-level codified language. To summarise, modern Bulgaria took a great chunk of Medieval Bulgaria's culture (and also that of neighbouring countries), including the name; but this inheritance was passive, unguided, and with a lot of foreign influences added. The invaders threw all Christian nations in the pot after 1400 and erradicated their consciousness. We've already noted why there is no political continuity (different government, different ruling dynasty, different capital, and so forth). - ☣Tourbillon 13:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the earlier bulgaries did not share the same capital or government structure is not significant: the pattern in the WP infoboxes is clearly to ignore "superficial" changes like capital or structure. The key question is continuity of culture/language/locale. Let's turn to the sources. Tourbillon cites the Enc. Brit. above, to demonstrate that Bulgaria was totally gone during the Ottomon era, but that source says:

The five centuries from 1396 to 1878, known as the era of the “Turkish yoke,” are traditionally seen as a period of darkness and suffering. Both national and ecclesiastical independence were lost. The Bulgarian nobility was destroyed—its members either perished, fled, or accepted Islam and Turkicization—and the peasantry was enserfed to Turkish masters. The “blood tax” took a periodic levy of male children for conversion to Islam and service in the Janissary Corps of the Ottoman army.

The picture was not entirely negative, however. Once completed, the Turkish conquest included Bulgaria in a “Pax Ottomanica” that was a marked contrast to the preceding centuries of war and conflict. While Ottoman power was growing or at its height, it provided an acceptable way of life for the Bulgarian population. It was only when the empire was in its decline and unable to control the depredations of local officials or maintain reasonable order that the Bulgarians found Ottoman rule unbearable.

Bulgaria did not change radically in its religious or ethnic composition during the Ottoman period, ..

and that includes the phrase " the Turkish conquest included Bulgaria in a Pax Ottomanica" which seems to indicate very strong continuity (not of the state, but the culture) during the Ottomon era. If other reliable sources also refer to "bulgaria" or "bulgarians" as an entity during the Ottomon era, that would suggest permitting the InfoBox to mention the pre-Ottomon empires. So, the next question is: Do reliable sources refer to a "bulgaria" or to "bulgarians" during the Ottomon era? --Noleander (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Noleander. Here are some more details. The statement that the language was different is incorrect. The language was Bulgarian or Old Bulgarian from the beginning. Church Slavonic is just another name for it. Here is a link: http://www.europe-cities.com/en/666/bulgaria/history/language/

Language? Answer: Language was the same. Here is a reference on history: http://www.europe-cities.com/en/666/bulgaria/history/language/ Culture? Answer: Culture was very much the same and not much has changed, retaining the core Bulgarian customs like Koleda (Christmas) Gergiovden (St. George's day), etc. Some of those are from pre 681 even. Here is a link: http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/history/bulgaria_customs.htm Name? Answer: The country has always been called Bulgaria Locale? Answer: Bulgarians have always referred to them and were referred to by others as Bulgarians. During the Ottomon era, did the residents of the Bulgarian region speak Bulgarian? Answer:Bulgarians continued to speak Bulgarian. Refer to themselves as Bulgarian? Answer: Yes, Bulgarians have always referring to themselves as Bulgarian Have a Bulgarian culture? Answer: Yes, see customs link: http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/history/bulgaria_customs.htm (Ximhua (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

Here is a source that clearly mentions and identifies Bulgaria and Bulgarians as such during the Ottoman period: http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/8.htm, it also states: "Nevertheless, certain Bulgarian groups prospered in the highly ordered Ottoman system, and Bulgarian national traditions continued in rural areas." This source is Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress of the United States. (Ximhua (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

Now let's not skew my words, shall we ? I did not say "Bulgaria was totally gone"; I said the population lost its national consciousness. It survived as an ethnic group, it survived as a religious community, but it had no sense of nation or a common people. As a matter of fact, no other people at the time had a sense of a common nation; nations only formed under the guidance of centralised absolutist governments, of which Bulgaria had none (unless you consider the occupying Islamic theocracy as such). Bulgaria did not change radically in its religious or ethnic composition - indeed, but all Balkan peoples share more or less the same traditions, such as mythology or cuisine (see Karakoncolos/Karakondzhul, Rakı and Martenitsa/Mărțișor). The argument that some traditions remain and therefore are a marker for continuity is completely invalid, because all Balkan nations share these traditions, not just Bulgaria. I don't see how Ximhua can point out Koleda ("Christmas") as an example of a Bulgarian tradition. There's at least three billion other people who celebrate it.

As for references on the usage of the term "Bulgarian", there are sources refering to "Bulgarians" during the Ottoman period. But the focal point of reasoning here should be the political nation-state, which Bulgaria created only after 1878. Before this date, Bulgaria was only a name for a vaguely defined region populated by an amorphic and extremely diverse bunch of people only united by a common language and religion. A given culture does not necessarily produce a country. And since we are discussing the formation of a country, and not a culture, the viewpoint from which this issue should be considered is the political and legal one. To this moment, there is not a single argument or source presented which proves that there is legal and political continuity between Medieval and modern Bulgaria. - ☣Tourbillon 15:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the modern state only came about in 1878, but the consensus in WP is that the InfoBoxes should include prior states/entities, as is shown in Germany, Russia, Hungary, France, and Poland. The 1st and 2nd Bulgarian empires were a political entities, and they were predecessors to the modern state, so it is consistent with the convention established in the earlier articles to include the predecessor political entities in the InfoBox. Or are you saying that the 1st and 2nd Bulgarian empires were not political entities? --Noleander (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not the consensus at all, and your examples mix apples and oranges. Germany Russia and France have existed as states (or as close as you get before statehood was codified) since those times. The entries on those infoboxes are the entities which underwent political changes to become the current state. That's why they are the predecessors. The Bulgarian empires share no such link to modern Bulgaria. CMD (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Noleander, I don't understand how you take a mention of Pax Ottomanica to say anything at all about Bulgarian culture. That just means it was peaceful within the Ottoman Empire. As for Bulgarians and Bulgaria, there was no Bulgaria under the Ottoman Empire. There were Bulgarians, as they weren't wiped out or forced to migrate or anything, but they were as noted contented Ottomans. At any rate, a group of people isn't a state. Bulgarians live outside of Bulgaria, and non-Bulgarians (ethnicity-wise) live inside Bulgaria. What happened wasn't a superficial change in structure or a shift in capital. Whatever Bulgaria there was disappeared. The Bulgaria of 1878 was a new creation. Yes there are links, but many of those links equally extend to places like the Republic of Macedonia. Any key question isn't about the continuity of language/culture or the like, because those have zero relevance to Westphalian statehood. CMD (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the world disagrees strongly with CMD and Tourbillon (http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/8.htm and http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/9.htm), here are some some quotes: "Village church life also felt relatively little impact from the centralized authority of the Greek Orthodox Church. Therefore, between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries, the villages became isolated repositories of Bulgarian folk culture, religion, social institutions, and language." "The Ottoman system also recognized the value of Bulgarian artisans, who were organized and given limited autonomy as a separate class. Some prosperous Bulgarian peasants and merchants became intermediaries between local Turkish authorities and the peasants.", "Some Bulgarian merchants assumed positions as intermediaries between Turkish and European markets, grew rich from such connections, and established offices in the major European capitals. As the Bulgarian cultural revival spread from the monasteries into secular society, these newly wealthy groups promoted secular art, architecture, literature, and Western ideals of individual freedom and national consciousness." etc., etc. This clearly answers the Noleander's question was Bulgaria referenced as Bulgaria and were Bulgarian's referenced as Bulgarians during that period. The answer is: YES On customs, of course there is an overlap with other Christian countries, this is natural. However, if Bulgaria has disappeared, would it adopt some Muslim holidays as well. There are none. Also, there are many uniquely Bulgarian customs mentioned in the link: LADOUVANE, KOUKERI, etc. (Ximhua (talk) 15:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

It baffles me as to how you take those quotes to show that Bulgaria was called Bulgaria during that period, as the word Bulgaria doesn't even appear there. As for cultural links, not once have I or Tourbillion noted they didn't exist. CMD (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They only include prior states if there is some political continuity between them. That is the case of Germany, France and Russia. That is not the case of Poland or Hungary (not really good articles), nor of Bulgaria. You used a very good description there - the Medieval Bulgarian empires were "political entities". But post-1878 is a sovereign state. The two empires were not sovereign countries. - ☣Tourbillon 15:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

So, the articles of Poland, Croatia, Serbia, Portugal, Spain, Czech Republic, etc., etc. are all not good, however they all follow the WP consensus on the info box. Also, the First and Second Bulgarian Empire were major powers and quite independent and sovereign entities. (Ximhua (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

It's amusing how you throw country articles like Spain and Portugal in the same pot as poorly configured ones like Serbia and Poland, not that other countries matter in this case or that there is any "consensus" on them. Please, refrain from making statements on the character of Medieval countries when you are obviously not aware what a sovereign state is. - ☣Tourbillon 16:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

"... the Medieval Bulgarian empires were "political entities". But post-1878 is a sovereign state." Dear Tourbillon, your allegation that the Kindoms of Simeon the Great or Ivan Asen II were not sovereign states is less than serious, you know. Nonsensical, actually. Best, Apcbg (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised that you call it "nonsensical", given that you are not aware what Westphalian sovereignty is either. That's first-year bachelor knowledge. - ☣Tourbillon 16:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The fallacy of your contribution to the present topic is not in Westphalian sovereignty but in your suggestion that the Bulgaria article should be treated differently from other countries’ articles. First you claim there is no WP rule on infobox entries on state formation; next thing you introduce a self-made such rule (some specific continuity) that neither derives from nor is in conformity with the existing practice; but even that’s not enough, so you demand that your rule be enforced for Bulgaria alone. Not exactly the way WP operates, I’m afraid. Apcbg (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bulgarian tendency to compare with other countries both in and outside Misplaced Pages is an interesting national trait, but it still does not give an answer to my question. - ☣Tourbillon 20:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a regular volunteer here at DRN. Just a gentle reminder to all participants in this discussion: Here at DRN we do not discuss user conduct; we only discuss content. Please be careful to limit your remarks to edits, not editors. If you wish to address another editor's conduct or make requests to them about how they conduct themselves, do so on their user talk page or at WP:WQA, WP:RFCU, or WP:SPI WP:ANI, not here, but please also remember that Bulgaria and discussions about it, including this discussion here, are subject to discretionary sanctions under the Eastern Europe arbitration case, so there is a need for heightened civility here and in any such complaints or requests. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the definition for sovereign country: "A sovereign state is a political organization with a centralized government that has supreme independent authority over a geographic area. It has a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states." Both the First and Second Bulgarian Empire match these criteria 100%. At this stage let's wait for Noleander's final verdict, as he is the mediator here. (Ximhua (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

I'm just an editor like anyone else here; the only difference is that I'm not a partisan in the dispute, and I'm simply volunteering to help others try to find common ground. Towards that end, I posted a notice at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries#Help_needed_re:_foudnation_dates_in_InfoBox_for_Bulgaria to see if other editors had some input. --Noleander (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to discuss whether pre-Westphalian entities are sovereign states or not. I doubt it's even fully settled in academia. CMD (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Ximhua, how conveniently you did not quote the remainder of the article, especially its first section. Could you please read Westphalian sovereignty, the very definition for a modern state, and tell me if the empires cover these criteria 100% ? And we're not working towards a "verdict", but towards solving a dispute - which would not have occurred in the first place if the other party had paid attention to actually understand the essence of their own arguments. - ☣Tourbillon 17:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC

Reviewing this discussion it is obvious that for historical reasons and for reasons of continuity of language, name, customs, etc. and for consistency with other countries, the date 681 should be included in the infobox, even better the date 1185 should also be included. A nation is not defined by political system. (Drustur90 (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

Drustur90, I understand that the above is your first edit, but you seem involved in this discussion. May I ask if you've been editing in this area as an IP? Feel free not to answer, I'm just curious. - Jorgath (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

First, I question the use of the definition of "sovreign state" in this discussion. That really is a form of modern construct, based on the circumstances of modern life. I am not at all sure it can be reasonably applied to governmental entities of an entirely different era. Secondly, I note that there is over one thousand years of history between the "early" Bulgarian governments and the later ones. I find it all but impossible to assume that there is any good cause to believe in any sort of significant direct continuity between entities over a thousand years apart. So, on that basis, I have to think that inclusion of the First Bulgarian Empire in the template above would almost certainly be giving undue weight to the potential linkages between the two. I could, perhaps, depending on establishment of notability, an article on the History of the Bulgarians. If I am right in jumping to a conclusion that the "Bulgarian" ethnicity relates in some way to the ethno-linguistic group which were a significant population of the First Bulgarian Empire, that would certainly be a place where the history of Bulgarians could be traced. But I can't see, based on the time differential between the two governments, that there is sufficient reason for us to declare a linkage of the disparate governmental entities in the template under discussion. It might, however, not be unreasonable for an article to review a history of the ethnic Bulgarians, depending on notability, weight, potentially POV forking, and possibly other factors, none of which I myself know much about. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

(Outside comment): I haven't read the above but the number one thing is to avoid drama over this sort of thing. I don't really understand why Germany has the HRE date; in my mind useful it's a) controversial and b) unlikely of any use to the reader. I can't comment on the turn of phrase, but I do think that "3 March 1878" and "22 September 1908" are the only useful dates to a reader. Add "previous entities existed" or something if absolutely necessary. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Noleander, I think you were inclined towards the Formation approach, other folks have also posted in its favor. It is clear that all of Tourbillon points were refuted with specific examples and references from respectable sources. He has not provided a single source to prove that Bulgarians didn't speak their language or didn't call themselves Bulgarians during periods of independence loss. We are now discussing the semantics of what is a sovereign country, even one of the Independence editors (Chipmunkdavis) have agreed this is irrelevant. My question is what would you, as a mediator, recommend as next steps in order for this to be brought to a closure, as Tourbillon may never change his opinion? To Grandiose: Please, read the above discussion to understand the reasons, but in nutshell a) consistency with other countries articles b) There is direct continuity, which is proven above (Ximhua (talk) 18:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

John Carter, there is direct and proven continuity. I'm re-posting with links. I'd urge all to back their statements with actual references, as without these, the statements don't really carry value. Language? Answer: Language was the same. Here is a reference on history: http://www.europe-cities.com/en/666/bulgaria/history/language/ Culture? Answer: Culture was very much the same and not much has changed, retaining the core Bulgarian customs like Koleda (Christmas) Gergiovden (St. George's day), etc. Some of those are from pre 681 even. Here is a link: http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/history/bulgaria_customs.htm Name? Answer: The country has always been called Bulgaria Locale? Answer: Bulgarians have always referred to them and were referred to by others as Bulgarians. During the Ottomon era, did the residents of the Bulgarian region speak Bulgarian? Answer:Bulgarians continued to speak Bulgarian. Refer to themselves as Bulgarian? Answer: Yes, Bulgarians have always referring to themselves as Bulgarian Have a Bulgarian culture? Answer: Yes, see customs link: http://www.eliznik.org.uk/Bulgaria/history/bulgaria_customs.htm (Ximhua (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

Ximhua, please don't skew things to make it look as if we're near a closure and it's only me on this position. That is arrogant pushing for closure of the discussion and declaring yourself as a "winner". There are three other users who have presented solid arguments that were never heard by you. You think you've "refuted" my statements with some examples of customs shared by at least five different cultures on the Balkans and sourced by unreliable sources ? Your obvious selective picking of information to prove a point ? When will you finally understand that standartisation and comparison with other countries is neither an argument nor does it have any weight on the issue because there is a certain 500-year gap between the first and last incarnation of a Bulgarian political entity that you ignore in the most stubborn and arrogant way possible ? There was no Bulgaria for 500 years, the one dating 1878 is completely new and has nothing to do with the previous ones apart from its name and language, which wasn't even the same as Medieval Bulgarian. Including the Medieval Bulgarian states in the infobox is nothing more than wishful thinking, incorrect assumptions and finally, completely useless because the entire history of the country is described concisely in the article. - ☣Tourbillon 20:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Noleander, as you can see the personal attacks and name calling have started. Maybe an admin can intervene? No references are presented, no sources, just blank statements. Misplaced Pages is about backing up one's statements with concrete verifiable and valid sources. I really would like to ask you as a mediator to advise on what are the next steps, so we can present our arguments (backed up by strong evidence and references for the continuity of name, language, religion and identity of Bulgaria, as well as consistency with other countries) and get a decision. I don't want to drag this forever. (Ximhua (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC))

As Tourbillon correctly and undeniably points out above, the old Bulgarian Empires ceased to exist, and there was no "Bulgaria" for 500 years (think about how long that is in terms of pre-industrial societies and human lifespans). Five centuries of foreign rule has a way of changing/erasing/making unrecognizable the language/traditions/culture of a people. The new entity created subsequent to independence from the Ottomans is a completely different state. No doubt the Empires are an important part of who the Bulgarian people are, but the current state of Bulgaria is in no way a successor to the empires of centuries past except in nationalistic pride and romanticism, which I believe is preventing some people from WP:HEARing the arguments at hand.--William Thweatt 01:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Will, the difference between your and turbillon's statements and mine, Ceco31, Gligan, Apcbg, Druster48 & V3n0M93 is that we back up our case with facts and verifiable references, whereas you and turbillon only ... talk. Give me prove that the states are different, you haven't provided a single link. I've provided you proves from respectable sources that there is direct continuation on language, culture, alphabet, customs, name & identity. Even, the moderator has told you that political system is insignificant. I've given you prove of Bulgarian aristocrats during the ottoman period, of wealthy Bulgarians during the period, of the thousands Bulgarian schools during that period, of the customs that survived, some from pre 681. My sources are from US Library of Congress and Britanica. Where are yours sources? If you have nothing else to add other than empty talk, please be kind enough to stop posting. Instead, try to read some of the examples that I've posted, try to educate yourself and you will quickly realize that the fact is that this is the same Bulgaria and the dates 681 and 1185 only provide a complete picture to the reader. In order to be consistent with Misplaced Pages standards and countries like Poland, Croatia, Czech Rep., Portugal, etc. all major historic dates should be listed in the info box starting with 681. How can't you see that statements that the "First and Second Bulgarian Empire were not sovereign states" are so wrong that they don't even deserve to be commented and that even CMD denounced them. How can't you see that the complete denial of the Bulgarian alphabet and language and calling it "Latin" is so easily proven wrong, just google Cyrillic alphabet. This alphabet was created in the X century in Bulgaria and has played and still plays a central piece in the formation of the Bulgarian state and nation. It is so easy to see it is the same. Unless, you have valid and serious references that explicitly deny Bulgaria's connection with Second and First Bulgarian Empire, please stop posting and kindly let the moderation advise on next steps. (Ximhua (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

Actually I did provide references, but you ignored my comment completely. You, on the other hand, provided a few links of dubious quality about Bulgarian customs as a "proof" of whatever you are trying to prove. If Bulgarians celebrate Christmas, that proves their state has existed continuously for 1,300 years. Wow, some logic. And finally, you are the only one who has actually presented any arguments for inclusion, all of them completely devoid of logic. One-purpose accounts with no other contributions don't count, sorry to disappoint. But rest assured, I will gladly provide you with the references you need: national consciousness of Balkan peoples annihilated after the Ottoman conquest; "the old Bulgarian state structure was destroyed...much of the nobility died...the separate Bulgarian church ceased to exist...the destruction of Bulgaria's political independence"; "haiduks lacked a strong sense of national consciousness...in the 19th century...a movement that restored Bulgarian national consciousness. Well their state, church and self-identification were destroyed and only emerged back in the 19th century after being 500 years in the abyss; so what, they celebrated Christmas. Lots of continuity there. - ☣Tourbillon 05:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I note that although sources have been presented, none of them note that there is any link between culture and statehood. Bulgarians existed. Okay, sure. Bulgarians had culture. Indeed. Bulgarians had religion. So they did. Does any of this have anything to do with statehood? No. CMD (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

We are making progress, so if you finally agreed that Bulgarian culture, religion, self-identity remained and continued, then the question becomes what is WP standard for other countries: Serbia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Poland, etc. and many other countries have all important historical dates in their boxes.

To turbillon: your references are from single sentences from light books taken out of context or your own writing in this dispute, how funny you are. Here are some references that are from Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress of the United States (http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/8.htm and http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/9.htm), again some quotes: "Village church life also felt relatively little impact from the centralized authority of the Greek Orthodox Church. Therefore, between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries, the villages became isolated repositories of Bulgarian folk culture, religion, social institutions, and language." "The Ottoman system also recognized the value of Bulgarian artisans, who were organized and given limited autonomy as a separate class. Some prosperous Bulgarian peasants and merchants became intermediaries between local Turkish authorities and the peasants.", "Some Bulgarian merchants assumed positions as intermediaries between Turkish and European markets, grew rich from such connections, and established offices in the major European capitals. As the Bulgarian cultural revival spread from the monasteries into secular society, these newly wealthy groups promoted secular art, architecture, literature, and Western ideals of individual freedom and national consciousness."

Here is also a reference on language: http://www.europe-cities.com/en/666/bulgaria/history/language/ Here is also a link about a Bulgarian prince during the ottomans, a statesman: http://en.wikipedia.org/Alexander_Bogoridi CMD, please read it. I can see turbillon's nationalistic urge to describe the ottoman period as if all Bulgarians disappeared and all things Bulgarian were lost. I'm afraid WP is no place to play the nationalistic card, but to be accurate. Bulgarians did survive in this period and retained much of what they had in terms of language,religion, self-identity, name, etc. therefore continuity is in place.

Again, it seems CMD has agreed on continuity of culture, language, religion, self-identity, what a great progress we are making, now once you realize the need for consistency with other countries, with history longer than a couple of centuries, you'll realize that 681 and 1185 should be include for historical accuracy and proper service to the reader. (Ximhua (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

Actually no, we're not making progress, none of us ever denied "continuity" of culture, we deny continuity of statehood. I provided a Britannica cite on lost national consciousness which you once again brutally ignored - a great demonstration of how you do not hear whatever is being said by the other party, and calling me a "nationalist" is an example of trolling par excellence. Unless other users who feel pain when the year 681 is not in the infobox have something to say, the user above might as well be treated as non-existent per Misplaced Pages:Deny recognition. - ☣Tourbillon 12:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Per Tourbillion. My position on culture etc. hasn't changed since the start, I've never disagreed that they continued in some way (although a national identity disappeared for awhile before being revived). I've explicitly said this before. You seem to have missed or ignored the entire point of my last post, which was the point on statehood being unrelated to culture and language. Throw at us all the sources saying that Bulgarians were part of the Ottoman empire, or that Bulgarians spoke Bulgarian, or that Orthodox churches existed in the Ottoman Empire you want; none of them are at all relevant to the passage of sovereignty, or of the existence of a state. CMD (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I fully support ximhua. The year 681 & 1185 should be in the info box for historical accuracy. This article is about Bulgaria at large not about the third Bulgarian state, thus this debate is pointless. Of course 681 and 1185 should be there, these are natural and extremely important dates for the formation of Bulgaria and Bulgarian national character. It is a limited and one sided view that the years should only reflect the latest incarnation of a country. This makes no sense and is not consistent with other countries. You can't create a self-invented rule and impose it on a single country. This is not per WP standards. The uninterrupted passage of rule of law, capital, etc is insignificant minutia and is not followed for other countries like Serbia, Croatia, Spain, Czech Republic, Poland, etc.

Include 681 and 1185. Include 681 and 1185.

Also, if you go to Bulgaria talk page you will see turbo insulting other contributors by calling them trolls, "has less patience than me in dealing with trolls. at 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)" as well as nationalists "you seek to impose your skewed, petty nationalistic point of view" at 16:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC) The turbo user is clearly http://en.wikipedia.org/Troll_%28Internet%29

There were other users who posted here in favor, namely: Apcbg, Ceco31, Gligan, V3n0M93

(Drustur90 (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

I agree with Noleander, Ximhua, Apcbg and Drastar90. As the consensus in WP is that the Info Boxes should include prior states/entities, as in Germany, Russia, Hungary, France, and Poland, the Bulgarian empires were a political entities, and they were predecessors to the modern state, so it is consistent with the convention established in the earlier articles to include the predecessors. Bulgaria is now treating differently from the other countries in Misplaced Pages and Bulgaria article and now the article is treating with different than the established usual practice in Misplaced Pages. --Ceco31 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

There does not appear to be consensus developing, perhaps because the prior Bulgarian empires fall into a grey area: the gap in continuity during the Ottomon era is an odd situation, so there are no other similar WP country-articles to look to for guidance. Two additional uninvolved editors opined (Carter & Grandiose) but nothing concrete came from that. Based on a suggestion from Grandiose, I'd like to propose a compromise: What if the InfoBox looked like this:

Formation:
 - Principality of Bulgaria 3 March 1878 (Independence from the Ottoman Empire)
 - Kingdom of Bulgaria 22 September 1908
Related political entities:
 - First Bulgarian Empire 681
 - Second Bulgarian Empire 1185

That way the readers get informed of the fact that there were the two prior political entities, but they are marked as separate. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 18:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be an acceptable compromise if we didn't have Volga Bulgaria and Old Great Bulgaria as well. They are related to Bulgaria 1.0 because of the ruling Dulo clan. IMHO that gives space for even more disputes, I can imagine users adding other smaller entities like the Vidin Tsardom, Dobrudzhan despotate and Eastern Rumelia, an Ottoman puppet state... - ☣Tourbillon 18:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like a reasonable compromise to me, with couple of minor changes. Replace the words "Related political entities" with "Prior political entities" as they were entities in the past, it just sounds more clear. I'd also put First Bulgarian Empire on top, then Second Bulgarian Empire, then the rest. Also, I'd remove the text "Independence from the Ottoman Empire" all together as otherwise we have to add clarification text next to each date.

I would also agree with Tourbillon (yes, believe it, we can agree on things) that Tsardom of Vidin, Dobrudzhan despotate and Eastern Rumelia don't have a place in the box. I reviewed the long thread and the talk page and I didn't see anyone ever asking for those to be added anyway, thus I don't think it is reasonable that someone will ask for those to be added. It is a good compromise and pretty much covers the demands of everyone involved. Thank you for mediating! (Ximhua (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

Apologies, one more edit: It should be "Tsardom of Bulgaria" not "Kingdom of Bulgaria", as Bulgaria had a Tsar not a King. (Ximhua (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

So I'm proposing something like:

Formation:
Prior political entities:
- First Bulgarian Empire 681
- Second Bulgarian Empire 1185
Third Bulgarian State:
- Principality of Bulgaria 3 March 1878
- Tsardom of Bulgaria 22 September 1908

(Ximhua (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

I disagree. Related political entities is such a broad title, it's just asking to be abused somehow (as for Ximhua's suggestion of prior political entities, they've missed tons of prior political entities, like the Macedonian Empire, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Byzantine Empire). In addition, or perhaps due to this, it's totally unclear as to what kind of information it's trying to convey. First of all the reader has to figure out how they're related. They'd also have to try and figure out what the dates mean. There's no explanation for what they are, and if the reader takes them to be starting dates, they're left wondering what happened to these political entities. This isn't information the infobox is designed to convey, nor should it have to (which is another problem with the plain inclusion of the 681 date: it implies the kingdom goes from 681 to 1878). I also don't know what the value of changing "independence" to "formation" is. Formation is an odd word to describe states. Lastly, although modern Bulgaria claims to inherit the mantle of the Kingdoms (and has set itself up with this in mind by imitating state symbols etc.), the kingdoms influence stretched over a huge area. Macedonia, for example, shares just as much cultural inheritance, being part of both kingdoms, having a strong Orthodox heritage, using the same script, and speaking the same language (well, give or take your politics). We wouldn't add the kingdoms to the Macedonia infobox, and we shouldn't add them to the Bulgaria one. CMD (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Come on, the names are pretty explicit First Bulgarian Empire and Second Bulgarian Empire, I can't imaging someone confusing Bulgaria with ancient Rome :-) Formation is the term used in most other countries, so it is widely accepted. The "Third Bulgarian State" on the other should satisfy the desire for separation that was requested. So overall, I still do think it is a good compromise, and I'll gladly vote Yes for the version with my minor updates. (Ximhua (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

Nowhere did I say, or even imply, that anyone would confuse the Bulgarian and Roman empires (I didn't even use the word confused). Formation is used in many articles where ethnic nationalism has meant states are conflated with nations of people. That doesn't mean a good article should use it. CMD (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with CMD here. This material is not of the kind that the infobox was created for. If we are to use the infobox, then we should use it in the way it was intended to be used. Inserting the material in the infobox is to a degree inherently misleading, confusing, and somewhat POV, in that so far as I can tell the only real continuation is the use of a single word, Bulgaria. By the same token, the Holy Roman Empire could be argued as a continuation of the Roman Empire. The facts however do not support such a clear linkage there, and I don't think they do here. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trilled with this much as I don't see the need to have a seperation between the Empires and Third Bulgarian State... however I'm inclined to say yes if this is the only compromise possible. John Carter, please read the Britanica link below, it was quoted earlier as well: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/84090/Bulgaria/42721/The-beginnings-of-modern-Bulgaria

The FACTS are, that every single article on the history of Bulgaria includes The First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire, again every single source does it. No exceptions. These entities are linked. Period. (82.137.85.21 (talk) 20:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)) The 82.137.85.21 IP was me Druster90, didn't realize I wasn't logged in. (Drustur90 (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

As I mentioned earlier - adding a whole bunch of dates and political entities in the infobox would be misleading and would imply (incorrectly) that there is continuity between these entities, while in fact there isn't. I really don't see why 1878 + 1908 is as catastrophic as the user and his meat/sockpuppet try to present it. - ☣Tourbillon 20:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Every single source on the history of Bulgaria includes the Ottoman Empire. No exceptions. Every single source. And yet I don't see anyone clamouring for that to be added to the infobox. CMD (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The compromise is a good one, it includes all major dates for Bulgarian history and the dates picked are the ones when an entity has been established or re-established, same as Poland, Serbia, Croatia, Spain, Portugal, Czech republic, etc. If one side is willing to accept the non-existent separation between the different incarnations of Bulgaria and have voluntarily added the line Third Bulgarian State, why can't you agree on a compromise? (Ximhua (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC))

Read above. - ☣Tourbillon 21:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I re-read your original comment "It would be an acceptable compromise if we didn't have Volga Bulgaria and Old Great Bulgaria as well.". I actually have no problem to include Old Great Bulgaria in the Info box. So here it is.

Formation:
Prior political entities:
- Old Great Bulgaria 632
- First Bulgarian Empire 681
- Second Bulgarian Empire 1185
Third Bulgarian State:
- Principality of Bulgaria 3 March 1878
- Tsardom of Bulgaria 22 September 1908

(Ximhua (talk) 13:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC))

I think you did not notice the if we didn't have. It's not acceptable. If prior political entities should be included, the Ottomans and the Byzantines should be included as well. Only 1878 and 1908 should remain. - ☣Tourbillon 14:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be quite rash to claim Eastern Roman Empire heritage, I think :) Also, other countries like Poland, Czech, Croatia, Serbia, etc. have only included dates that specifically related to establishment or re-establishment of entities that specifically claim to be Polish, Czech, Croat, Serbian, etc. We should be consistent. (Ximhua (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC))

There's definitely Byzantine heritage. It was Byzantine before and after the First Kingdom. Anyway, I've said above, but apparently you've missed it, that just because other countries have also used their infobox incorrectly does not mean Bulgaria should (especially as Bulgaria is a GA and all). That's the essence of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You've also ignored the many country articles which don't do this. CMD (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The First Bulgarian Empire was preceded by Old Great Bulgaria, which was preceded by other Bulgarian entities, which came from Asia, it has nothing to do with either the Roman or later the Eastern Roman Empire. Your self-created rule for infoboxes doesn't make other countries incorrect. (Ximhua (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC))

I don't know how good your history is, but the Romans conquered the area early on in the first millenium, and the Eastern Roman Empire inherited it from that and then reconquered it from the First Bulgarian Empire (you can find out more at History of Bulgaria). You seem to have missed the essence of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but on the flipside of your statement what editors have done on other countries doesn't make those correct. Again you've ignored that many country articles don't do this. Mali for example, doesn't include the Malian Kingdom. CMD (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The Article is about Bulgaria at large. Bulgaria and Bulgarians historically came from Asia and originated in Asia, them moved slowly towards Southern Europe, sorry but no Romans involved :), except during wars. As for Mali, the comparison doesn't makes sense. Bulgaria should be compared with other European countries for historical reason, for proximity reasons and for consistency reasons. I believe you'd agree that there are some differences between the Czech Republic and Mali for example in historical plan. Here is a link to Old Great Bulgaria - http://en.wikipedia.org/Old_Great_Bulgaria, even in the source you give, it clearly talks about Old Great Bulgaria. (Ximhua (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC))

Bulgarians ≠ Bulgaria. Ethnicity ≠ State. Social history ≠ Political history. You've also given no reasons that the comparison doesn't make sense. CMD (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, the article is about Bulgaria at large. Cultural traditions, religion, customs, symbols, language, alphabet are more important in this regard that minutia like political order, etc. that is why the key dates in forming the above mentioned cultural traditions, religion, customs, symbols, language, alphabet are important and must be mentioned. If the article was about the First Bulgarian Empire alone, I would have gladly agreed for the years 681-1018 to be mentioned only, but it is not. The article is called BULGARIA.

The reasons why the comparison with Mali don't make sense were listed. Namely, Bulgaria has a lot more in common geographically, politically and historically with European countries, than with Mali. I'm sure you realize this.

Unrelated note: (I see on your page you're still looking into formatting techniques) - I'm an expert in that and will be glad to help you. Just post your questions on my talk page. (Ximhua (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC))

I don't even understand why are we discussing the origin of Bulgarians or comparing Bulgaria with other countries. Including previous Bulgarian entities is completely out of the question. The definition is far too wide and could bring under the spotlight just about anything, that does include Byzantium and the Ottoman empire, which happen to occupy about half of the 1,300-year period of Bulgarian history. Why turn the infobox a chronology of past events when there's a pretty good history section already. - ☣Tourbillon 19:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What is "Bulgaria at large"? A vague self-defining term no doubt. The article Bulgaria is about the state of Bulgaria, not about some odd nationalistic fusion of every concept with the word Bulgaria in it. "Bulgaria is a country located in Southeastern Europe." In addition, you apparently can't find any specific reason that European countries should be treated so fundamentally differently to African countries (saying "They're European!" doesn't cut it, as it doesn't explain anything, neither does saying "They have a different history!" or any other suitably vague ideal, as again that says nothing, with the questions "so?" and "how?" still remaining). Again, I repeat, "Bulgarians ≠ Bulgaria. Ethnicity ≠ State. Social history ≠ Political history." Add to that Culture ≠ State, Religion ≠ State, Language ≠ State, Alphabet ≠ State, Customs ≠ State, and in all those you could also replace the word State with Bulgaria. Until you grasp this there's no point continuing. Perhaps you want to edit Bulgarians#History and ethnogenesis, which deals with all the cultural and religious links (and you'll see if you read the article that Roman populations were part of the formation of this culture, despite your assertions otherwise). CMD (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

cmd you can't be serious, and apparently haven't even read the article on Bulgaria. In this article the First Bulgarian Empire and the Second Bulgarian Empire are discussed in detail, but I guess you'd suggest to remove them. The formation of country is what is listed in this infobox and what is present in other European countries. We need to be consistent. If there were no First Bulgarian Empire and Second Bulgarian Empire there certainly would not have been the Tsardom of Bulgaria. You have already admitted on continuation of culture, religion, alphabet, language & symbols. Why is it such a big deal for you to add these dates? They do occur for most European countries, they do occur in the Bulgarian version of the article for Bulgaria and they do occur in every source on Bulgarian history. Did you know that the Soviet Union was ruled by a Georgian - Stalin for a while and that the entire elite of that country was eliminated in 1917, that the country was overrun by Mongols at some time. I'd like to see you convince the Russians that they have to remove 862 from their page. I'm really trying to understand why do you keep bringing insignificant stuff like political system, etc. Why are you not looking for a compromise? (Ximhua (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC))

There can't be compromise when one of the active parties has arguments that remain unchanged, while the other one consists of one man with no arguments apart from "luk oder country Poland czech republic etc." and lack of common sense. Simple as that. This discussion is pretty much pointless given that, until now, not a single argument exists that there is an undeniable need to list unconnected political entities in the infobox of the article. Only having 1878 and 1908 is accurate. Having 632, 681, 1185 or whatever is inaccurate and wrong. If you want to know why, please read carefully above. - ☣Tourbillon 21:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me remind you that at least 6 named users have posted against this on the talk page and here, namely: Ximhua, Ceco31, Gligan, Apcbg, V3n0M93, Druster90. Just because these other folks don't post all the time, like you do, doesn't mean that they have not expressed their opinion. They have and it is clearly documented. Your continuous insults are against WP rules and I'm keeping count. You are constantly contradicting yourself, as at one point you complain that there are too many related Bulgarian States "It would be an acceptable compromise if we didn't have Volga Bulgaria and Old Great Bulgaria as well. They are related to Bulgaria 1.0 because of the ruling Dulo clan" and then you flip flop saying that they are unconnected (your last post). So, which one is it? The dates 681 and 1185 are essential for the accuracy of the article and they either need to be added to the box or the article needs to be reverted to its 2006 version, which remained unchanged for 6 years. (Ximhua (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC))

I don't contradict myself, it's your problem that you don't have a clear insight into what I'm saying. There's only two involved users who expressed an opinion here - Ceco31, i.e. you, and Apcbg who expressed an opinion on me, and not on the topic. No need to include your obvious socks like Drustur90. But so as not to accuse me of...whatever you are accusing me - 1878 and 1908 are the only relevant dates that should remain. Complete argumentation is above, you can go through it once again. - ☣Tourbillon 21:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you did contradict yourself and you know it :) Apcbg expressed his opinion pretty clearly in the Talk page, let me remind you "To maintain that "modern Bulgaria has no relation to the previous states" is beyond me; it defies common sense. Naturally such predecessors would rather be medieval than 23rd century states :-) By the way, the oldest European state is most certainly Armenia. Apcbg (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)" You have no arguments. Every single source on Bulgarian history mentions the dates 681 and 1185 and they have to be in. (Ximhua (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC))

I agree with Noleander, Ximhua, Apcbg and Drastar90. As the consensus in Misplaced Pages is that the Info Boxes should include prior entities, as in Germany, Russia, Hungary, France, and Poland, the Bulgarian empires were a political entities, and they were predecessors to the modern state, so it is consistent with the convention established in the earlier articles to include the predecessors. Bulgaria is now treating differently from the other countries in Misplaced Pages and Bulgaria article and now the article is treating with different than the established usual practice in Misplaced Pages.

I did not read the discussion above, but I am noting that there is a mistake in the compromise suggestion. You are mistaken that the empires are "related political entities", they are the same entities as modern Bulgaria. Every single source about Bulgaria claims that the established dates of what is today Bulgaria is the establishment of the First Bulgarian Empire - 681 AD, I explained my arguments and cited this in Talk:Bulgaria but I was ignored. Old Great Bulgaria and Volga Bulgaria are other related entities but not the same as Bulgaria today and should be excluded, therefore these two are not numbered as respective Bulgarian Empires as the First and the Second - they were Bulgar not Bulgarian states.

To the "independence" side, do not ignore this, but answer whether can you show something contradicting the experts' claims about the foundation of Bulgaria in 681 or not? And please show third party opinions, not your own thoughts, as the experts which claim 681 understand more on the question than you. I hope, I will not annoy if I place few quotes as examples about what every single source about Bulgaria says about the foundation date - all they say 681, and nobody from the "independence side" cannot contradict this claim. Nobody did not show one source saying that the establishment date is in 1878 as they claim, because such most likely does not exist. All these say - 681 as foundation date and further important description that the First and the Second empires were the same entities:

Bulgaria, Indiana University, 1987, p. 53

Erik Kooper (2006), The Medieval Chronicle IV, p. 97

R. J. Crampton (2005), A Concise History Of Bulgaria, Cambridge University Press, p. 9

Francisco Rodríguez Adrados (2005), A History of the Greek Language, BRILL, p. 265

M. Avrum Ehrlich (2008), Encyclopedia of the Jewish Diaspora, ABC-CLIO, p. 954

This says that is one of the oldest sovereign states in Europe founded in 681:

Juliet Lodge (2010), The 2009 Elections to the European Parliament, Palgrave MacMillan, p. 60

So, finally, this I think would stay better, here's mine suggestion:

Formation:

- Establishemnt date - 681 AD

- Modern state - 1878

- Currrent political system - November 1991 -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceco31 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

...but you somewhat ignored my sources that Bulgarian self-consciousness and state were actually destroyed in the 14 century. How convenient. Keep throwing. - ☣Tourbillon 06:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are again the sources from Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress of the United States - http://countrystudies.us(http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/8.htm and http://countrystudies.us/bulgaria/9.htm), again some quotes: "Village church life also felt relatively little impact from the centralized authority of the Greek Orthodox Church. Therefore, between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries, the villages became isolated repositories of Bulgarian folk culture, religion, social institutions, and language." "The Ottoman system also recognized the value of Bulgarian artisans, who were organized and given limited autonomy as a separate class. Some prosperous Bulgarian peasants and merchants became intermediaries between local Turkish authorities and the peasants.", "Some Bulgarian merchants assumed positions as intermediaries between Turkish and European markets, grew rich from such connections, and established offices in the major European capitals. As the Bulgarian cultural revival spread from the monasteries into secular society, these newly wealthy groups promoted secular art, architecture, literature, and Western ideals of individual freedom and national consciousness."

These sources clearly negate the comment that self-consciousness was lost. We have to bring 681 & 1185 back in. I'd agree on 681 only however, if this is the price. (Ximhua (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC))

No, they don't. They only say that Bulgarian folk culture continued to exist under some form; the existence of this does not equal to the existence of a national self-consciousness, much less the continuity of statehood. Actually, even the source you provided states that these newly wealthy groups promoted secular art and Western ideals of individual freedom and national consciousness, and not that there actually was a national consciousness prior to that. Nice display of wishful thinking on your part, though. - ☣Tourbillon 13:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hello, I am a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It seems that this dispute is quite complex and may take a decent amount of time to be resolved. I think we should refer this to the Mediation Committee - they're a team of highly experienced mediators who are skilled in resolving disputes like this. They can help parties come to a compromise and work through ideas - and it's not as big an issue if it takes time to get to an agreement. If there's no objections I'll refer this there in the morning (Australian time) but I think it would definitely be in the best interests of everyone here if the dispute goes that way. Regards, Steven Zhang 13:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, at least a certain degree of hearing will be guaranteed there. - ☣Tourbillon 14:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is probably best to advance to the next step in the DR process. My personal opinion is that this is a coin-toss: There are good arguments for both approaches; and neither solution is demonstrably wrong. Fortunately, it is only the InfoBox that is under discussion: the article body is includes lots of good historial detail, so as long as the readers get past the InfoBox, they can get a more nuanced viewpoint from the article body. --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a question which seems not to be answered in any of the previous posts. Not knowing much about Bulgarian history, if it seems that there are certain similarities between the Turkish Yoke of Bulgaria and Austrian occupation of the Czech kingdom (1621-1918). The question is - at all times the Habsburgs ruled the Czech lands as the Czech kings (and/or Moravian Margraves). What was the title which the Turkish rulers held as regards the territory of Bulgaria? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Bulgarians, along with other Balkan peoples, were included in the Rumelia Eyalet. It held parts of several previous political entities, including Serbian, Albanian and Byzantine ones.. The sultan's official title included "lord of Rumelia", but not "lord of Bulgaria".- ☣Tourbillon 14:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Tourbillon. Were there any territorial/regional divisions of the Rumelia Eyalet? E.g. the Czech Kingdom consisted of Bohemia proper, Moravia, Silesia. Could something like that be traced to Bulgaria as a part of Rumelia? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The eyalet was divided into numerous sanjaks, a total of 33 in fact. From what I read in the Turkish version of the article, Bulgarian sanjaks in the eyalet were Sofia, Kyustendil, Cirmen (Chernomen), Silistra, Nigbolu (Nikopol), and if we consider the pre-1371 Second Bulgarian Empire, Ohrid and Skopje. The rest were Albanian, Epirean, Serbian and formerly Byzantine provinces or kingdoms, such as the Lordship of Prilep. Bulgaria was certainly an integral part of Rumelia, but Rumelia itself consisted of a lot more than Bulgaria proper - including Bosnia, Serbia, and Thessaloniki, which was never a Bulgarian territory. - ☣Tourbillon 15:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there were a number of sub divisions typically corresponding to a city, for example Sofia. However, there was religious autonomy, subsequently clear national identification via first the Archbishop of Ohrid, established as Bulgarian entity in 1018 and abolished only in 1767 http://en.wikipedia.org/Archbishop_of_Ohrid and then the Bulgarian Exarchate in XIX http://en.wikipedia.org/Bulgarian_Exarchate . Both of these entities were created prior of the 1878 and existed within the ottoman state. (Ximhua (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC))

Steven Zhang ,fantastic idea on the mediation committee! I've actually submitted it today: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Bulgaria and have indicated agree. Please, take a look and let us know if anything further is needed. (Ximhua (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC))

I will not support the given mediation proposal. It is one-sided, incomplete, and poorly formulated. - ☣Tourbillon 16:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Noleander & Steven Zhang, please help. Tourbillon has indicated on the mediation page that he accepts, but now he doesn't. I've placed links to discussions on both this page and talk page, so all is in the open. He is attacking me with sock threat. I need your help to move this dispute to the next level, as the facts are pretty obvious and reputable sources support it. (Ximhua (talk))

Tourbillon, the formal mediation request is just there to get acceptance from all parties that mediation is needed - it's not saying that you 100% agree with the summary. I would strongly urge everyone to agree on this - MedCom will hash out the dispute details later. Ximhua, it may help if you summarise the issues that are here, in an objective way. If you are struggling with this, please let me know and I will assist where possible. Regards, Steven Zhang 21:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added a summary of the opposing side's comments on the mediation page. However, I'm expecting the committee, to read thru this discussion and the talk page to get more familiar with the matter. I'd also expect them to research Bulgaria's history and view sources provided. The decision has to be made based on facts and arguments, not the number of posts. (Ximhua (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC))

Eternalism (philosophy of time), Talk:Four-dimensionalism

• Eternalism (philosophy of time) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:Four-dimensionalism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Dispute overview

• Can you give us a quick explanation of what is going on? What is the issue you are bringing here?

User:Hypnosifl added an S.M.Carroll reference to eternalism in support of the statement that "It is sometimes referred to as the "block time" or "block universe" theory". Unfortunately, he also included WP:OR in the ref: ""Eternalism, "block universe" and "block time" are understood as synonymous terms by philosophers". Later he claims that Carroll was "not good" (because "It" was in reference to a Kurt Vonnegut example). That's misleading however, because Carroll does go on to specify eternalism... While it's clearly amenable with a 4D view of time, sources offer examples of eternalism that predate a "block universe" 4D view of time, and they stop short of equating the two as "synonymous". I've asked User:Hypnosifl several times not to accommodate his additions to the lede by removing existing material.

Users involved

• Who is involved in the dispute?

• Hypnosifl (talk · contribs)
• Machine Elf 1735 (talk · contribs)

Reviving the dead thread Talk:Four-dimensionalism#Elephant in the room - possible redundancy, User:Hypnosifl proactively set me up as an opponent to the edits he intended to make at Eternalism (philosophy of time).

• Have you informed all the editors mentioned above that you have posted this dispute? (If not, once you have informed them come back and replace the text "Not yet" with "Yes".)

Yes.

• To inform the other users you may place the text {{subst:DRN-notice|thread=Eternalism (philosophy of time), Talk:Four-dimensionalism}} --~~~~ in a new section on each user's talk page.

Resolving the dispute

• Have you tried to resolve this dispute already? If so, what steps have you taken?

see TL;DR at Talk:Four-dimensionalism#Elephant in the room - possible redundancy and edit summaries at Eternalism (philosophy of time) and User talk:Hypnosifl#Edit Warring.

• How do you think we can help?

Do you think you can help? If so, how?

Machine Elf  21:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you think DRN can help? If so, how? is the question. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Eternalism (philosophy of time), Talk:Four-dimensionalism discussion

It sounds like weasel words to say 'some' and not specify who. Also sounds like WP:OR, we need names and sources. If it cannot be backed up then it should be removed. I'm not going to jump into some esoteric article and begin dictating the matter, but if you can't provide a reliable source (anyone, doesn't matter who), then I wouldn't include it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying but just to clarify, the weasel word is in the source and this is the lede... specific advocates are given in the body. I'm not disputing that some, (∃, as opposed to all, ∀), philosophers see the two as largely similar or even synonymous. Those philosophers would not allude to any historical "eternalism" that predates the concept of spacetime, for example, but others do.—Machine Elf  22:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case I would note that were appropriate for context, even if they are different views or predating current thinking it does not discount the views themselves for having a similar appearance or association. It is good to provide both sides even if they seem silly when a close connection or similarity exists. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Hypnosifl can explain for himself, but he wanted to say is that eternalism is "synonymous" with block universe theory. He can't source it because apparently no one says that. There is no other dispute.—Machine Elf  01:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that after MachineElf objected to "synonymous", I immediately changed it to "Eternalism, defined as the view that there are no ontological differences between past, present and future, is also known as the "block universe" theory", directly reflecting the language of the quoted sources (all written by professional philosophers), and all my further edits have avoided "synonymous", so I don't think it's reasonable to treat this as the basis for the dispute. My original reason for using "synonymous" was that I thought any reasonable parsing of the statements by the sources would indicate they were treating them as synonymous (obviously, any sourced claim in a wikipedia article that doesn't directly quote the source requires some small amount of parsing to understand that the sentence in the article is an accurate paraphrase of the accompanying source). Here we are talking about professional philosophers discussing the formal terms "eternalism" and "block time", and the sources say the following:

'The third and more popular theory is that there are no significant ontological differences among present, past, and future because the differences are merely subjective. This view is called “the block universe theory” or “eternalism.”' (source)

'Block universe theory: Metaphysical theory that implies all of the past, present, and future is real. The name derives from the fact that a Minkowski diagram would represent events as points in a block if space and time were to be finite in all directions. Also called "eternalism."' (source)

'It is commonly held that relativity favors the "block universe" view (known also as "eternalism"), according to which all events enjoy the same ontological status regardless of their location' (source)

'It does not help, either, that there is a tendency to conflate eternalism — the four-dimensional "block universe" view — with causal determinism.' (source)

When philosophers say that a given view, first identified with formal name "A", is "also known as" formal name "B", or say things like 'this view is called "A", or "B"', I think it's a perfectly reasonable parsing to say that A and B are just different terms for the exact same philosophical view, i.e. synonymous. But since the sources did not use the precise word synonymous and MachineElf objected, I figured a reasonable compromise would be the "Eternalism ... is also known as the block universe theory", directly reflecting the "also called" and "known also as" in two of the sources above. MachineElf continues to object, insisting that the sentence be replaced by a weaker claim that eternalism is "sometimes referred to as the block time or block universe perspective", presumably based on MachineElf's feeling that for at least some philosophers there is a conceptual distinction between the terms as indicated by his/her comment above "I'm not disputing that some, (∃, as opposed to all, ∀), philosophers see the two as largely similar or even synonymous. Those philosophers would not allude to any historical "eternalism" that predates the concept of spacetime, for example, but others do." But MachineElf hasn't actually provided a single example of a source written by a professional philosopher that says this--the source after his/her "sometimes" version is a book by the physicist Sean Carroll, and Carroll does not actually say that there is any distinction between the terms (he first introduces the terms "block time" and "block universe" to describe the view that all times are equally real, then later he says "The viewpoint we've been describing, on the other hand, is (sensibly enough) known as "eternalism," suggesting he does not see any distinction. For further discussion between MachineElf and I about the Carroll quote, see this section of my user talk page (I have requested MachineElf's permission to move it to the Eternalism talk page so that others will be more likely to see it and weigh in). Hypnosifl (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, it might help if MachineElf could expand a little on the comment that "I'm not disputing that some, (∃, as opposed to all, ∀), philosophers see the two as largely similar or even synonymous. Those philosophers would not allude to any historical "eternalism" that predates the concept of spacetime, for example, but others do." Are you suggesting that if there was a historical philosopher who had made arguments about all times being equally real in a time period that "predates the concept of spacetime", then no one would call them an advocate of the "block universe", and therefore that the modern philosophers who define "eternalism" to be synonymous with "block universe" would also not call them a historical advocate of "eternalism"? If so, I think that's a misunderstanding--while the origin of the term "block universe" may have to do with relativity, this debate is about what philosophical ideas the terms denote for modern philosophers, and the ones I quoted suggest they are both understood to denote nothing more than the idea that all times have equal ontological status. So if some ancient philosopher, like Dogen, expressed a view that seemed to be saying all times have equal ontological status, it would be correct to say that "they advocated the view that is today described by the term 'block universe'", even though they would have been unaware of the idea of time as a dimension in a four-dimensional block. The fact that the words of the term may have been inspired by 20th century ideas has nothing to do with what philosophers understand the term to mean in a technical sense.Hypnosifl (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don’t understand the issue here as it seems clear cut to me. What became known as the “block universe.” as first formulated by Minkowski based upon his erstwhile math student’s illustrious work, is a construct of physics, while “eternalism” is a philosophical derivation. Although both Minkowski and Einstein were eternalists, they stopped short of actually stating that the theory demanded eternalism, though Einstein came close to stating such in his fifth appendix to the fifteenth edition of his book: Relativity: The Special and General Theory. He stated: “It appears…more natural to think of physical reality as a four-dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three-dimensional existence.”

One of the first to discern the true depth of Minkowski’s arguments and his true intent was the German mathematician Hermann Weyl who about two decades after Minkowski delivered his famous speech made a defining observation regarding what came to be known as the block universe that has significant relevance to what you are asking here. He observed: “The objective world simply is, it does not happen.”

Therefore, the concepts of the block universe and eternalism are certainly not synonymous in form anymore than an American is synonymous with America. Whether this is also true in substance is somewhat debatable. However, a good case might be made that the two concepts are synonymous in substance. What seems to constitute the final nail in the coffin for the presentist position is perhaps the most salient prediction of STR, the relativity of simultaneity. It is simply not tenable to account for this within a three-dimensional paradigm of reality (with time being an independent entity rather than embedded with the three dimensions of space to form the four-dimensional, holistic entity now called spacetime). For an excellent discussion of this point, I would commend to you the following paper by a philosopher at a Canadian university whose research and insights I have found to be invaluable in formulating my own opinions.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/2408/1/Petkov-BlockUniverse.pdf

Nevertheless, the proposition that the ‘block universe” demands eternalism is not universally accepted. Therefore, an editor is wrong in removing material that casts doubt upon the proposition in favor of inserting material which at least implies that there is no credible dissent to the proposition.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)'

HistoryBuff, does your statement that the block universe is a "construct of physics" mean that you are saying that you understand the term "block universe" to be one that does not necessarily refer to a philosophical claim about the ontology of different times (treating them as equally real), but rather can be understand to refer just to the physical/mathematical content of Minkowski's formulation of relativity (which, as a physical theory, cannot properly be understood to make any philosophical claims about ontology, even if it may suggest that eternalism is a better fit for the physics than presentism)? If that is what you're saying, can you provide any sources that say the same thing? The paper you link to doesn't seem to say this, although it talks about various physicists drawing ontological conclusions from the physics--in the introduction it says that taking the block universe view means "regarding the universe as a timelessly existing four-dimensional world", with "timelessly existing" being an ontological claim. I have never seen "block universe" used to refer only to physical claims about relativity, or to mathematical formulations of relativity, although the name is inspired by Minkowski's version as MachineElf demonstrated to me (pointing to this reference). On the other hand, if you're saying that you just don't distinguish between the physical content of Minkowski's work and the ontological claims of the "block universe" view, I think that's a view philosophers would disagree with, even if physicists themselves might sometimes fail to distinguish them. The author of the paper you link to does seem to think that there is a unique ontology compatible with the physics seen in relativity, but he does argue this conclusion at length rather than saying that relativity itself is an ontological theory (and always seems to use "block universe" to refer to the ontological conclusions, not the physics itself...nor does he mention the word "eternalism" so that paper can't be used as evidence for a difference in meaning between "eternalism" and "block universe"). Moreover, he admits he is in the minority in this view: see p. 19, where he writes It is a widely accepted view that "relativistic mechanics does not carry a particular ontological interpretation upon its sleeve". I would say this widely accepted view is the correct one, since nothing in the physics would change if there was an "ontologically preferred frame" which was completely indistinguishable from other frames by experiment, but a discussion about this issue would be getting away from the question of whether there are any reliable sources that argue for any difference between the terms "block universe" and "eternalism". Hypnosifl (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The former. Einstein thought he was theorizing a new paradigm describing the nature of realty and not some philosophical treatise. In fact, as is commonly known, it was Minkowski who discerned the deeper implications of the great man’s work; a discernment that Einstein was reluctant to embrace at first. He eventually did. You want me to find a source for this assertion? If so, I shall try to dig one up but I can’t remember exactly where I read it first.

I wrote a philosophical proof of a creator (of some kind, not necessarily God in the traditional sense; it could just as well be an extra-dimensional computer program) based upon the fact that I don’t see how the eternalist model of the block universe (which I am convinced is correct assuming a materialist reality) can accommodate causality from within, notwithstanding the fact that it seems absurd on an empirical basis to deny causality exists. Therefore, causality must have been operative from without in a higher dimensional time. It is difficult to pin down exactly what Einstein’s ontological views were, except to say he was certainly not a believer in God. Whether he had been an atheist or an agnostic is open to debate. Therefore, he certainly wouldn’t have agreed with my proof. Still, it is based upon the apparent implications of his theory.

This is no different than discussing the implications of Copernicus’s heliocentric cosmology which ticked off a lot of churchmen wedded to a literal interpretation of certain Biblical events. Copernicus was not making any theological or philosophical statement. He was simply putting forth a new physical paradigm of reality.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

You want me to find a source for this assertion?

Yes, that would be helpful. But I'm still confused about what you're asserting--you say "Einstein thought he was theorizing a new paradigm describing the nature of realty and not some philosophical treatise", but "nature of reality" sounds like a claim about ontology, not about physics alone free from any philosophical claims. So when you say "the former", I'm not clear on how your statement relates to my original question which asked if you understood "block universe" to sometimes refer to the physical content of relativity or its mathematical formulation, free of any ontological claims about whether all times are equally "real". Are you saying "yes" to that question (i.e., saying some professional philosophers do use "block universe" to refer to a non-philosophical theory of physics), or are you saying that the people who came up with the term "block universe" just didn't distinguish between physical claims and ontological claims, and understood relativity itself to be making ontological claims about all times being equally real? Hypnosifl (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, what I mean, at least, is that Einstein, through algebra, positioned a theory with predictions that were or might some day become testable such as time dilation, length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity. At this point in its formulation, it was a mere mathematical construct with no ontological overtones. It was Minkowski adding a geometrical view of spacetime that placed ontological overtones to the theory that Weyl later spelled out. Although it appears to be incomprehensible to the human intellect (at least), what I would term the “ultimate mystery” is that somewhere within reality (either within our dimension or one a priori to ours)someone or something must “just is” (exists eternally with no beginning; timelessly) which forms the ground of existence which cannot be further sublated. (“I am who am.”) To Weyl, that would be the universe itself, the sum total of MEST as opposed to a theist’s God. In my proof, I dispute this contention as illogical because of the obvious existence of causality that does not seem to be able to be accounted for within an eternalist paradigm.

Regarding a source for Einstein not at first accepting Minkowki’s interpretation as literal, it is stated in the Wiki article for Minkowski that Einstein viewed his former teacher’s model as a mathematical trick. A blogger I found states the same, though I can’t pin an actual source at the moment, maybe a biography of Einstein. I think it is pretty much common knowledge which is why perhaps it is not sourced in the Wiki article.

This particular blogger is like most of us here, a very intelligent layman to the fields of physics and philosophy. Aside from iterating what I discussed above, he spends a lot of time in this post discussing his views on the differentiation of mathematical constructs and reality. I don’t agree with him in his article’s entirety.

Here’s the link:

http://enquiriesnw.com/2012/05/28/space-time-and-reality/HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hypnosifl, I've explained more than once:

He introduced the concept with a popular example from fiction. He most certainly did name "this lofty timeless Tralfamadorian perch", sometimes called "block time" or "block universe", and in due course, he went on to say that he had been speaking about eternalism. It's WP:TENDENTIOUS to claim there's nothing in Carroll 'that clearly contradicts the idea that "eternalism" and "block universe" are understood by philosophers to refer to the selfsame philosophical theory'. But if 'sometimes' didn't make it clear enough, he belabors the point: 'Opinions differ, of course. The struggle to understand time is a puzzle of long standing, and what is "real" and what is "useful" have been very much up for debate.' Yes, he does say that eternalism is sometimes called "block time" or "block universe"... as opposed to Augustine's presentism: "The viewpoint we've been describing, on the other hand, is (sensibly enough) known as "eternalism," which holds that past, present, and future are all equally real." The so-called '"It is sometimes known as block time" edit' was preexisting text and your bold subsequent edit has been challenged, see WP:BRD.

— User talk:Hypnosifl#Edit Warring

No philosopher who traces eternalism back to Parmenides would seriously claim that Minkowski "block time/block universe" originated in the 5th century BCE. Again, it's merely WP:TENDENTIOUS to repeat ad nauseum that you don't need a cite.—Machine Elf  21:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I am a volunteer here at DRN. I've flagged this dispute for attention - sorry that we haven't had time to look at this yet. I ask you all to hold off on discussion until myself or another volunteer comments further. Thanks. Steven Zhang 13:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Taking a look on it. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland)

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Maryland Pride (talk · contribs)
• CT Cooper (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

I have been trying for many months, to get the Northwestern HS article in question, reassessed in both WikiProject Schools & WikiProject Maryland. It makes no sense that it's taken almost a year of effort, to try and get someone from either projects to reassess the article. I regularly check the Assessment sections on both WikiProjects, and I'm seeing completed reassessments on a daily basis. I asked someone to reassess Northwester about a good FOUR or FIVE times, in just one of the projects, alone. I was blatantly ignored.

I finally contacted Misplaced Pages and asked them what steps I had to take, to request a reassessment. Misplaced Pages responded to me on two separate occasions, in regards to my inquiry. BOTH times, I was told that Misplaced Pages recommended I—myself—reassess the article, since no one else seemed to be willing to do so. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages stated the encouraged me to be an active member of WikiProject Schools and WikiProject Maryland. They said that I was the ideal person to do the reassessments. Upon reassessing the article, myself, my biggest fear ended up coming true: I was concerned that as soon as I conducted the reassessment, all of a sudden there would be a flurry of interest and participation for other editors, in regards to the article in question. Sure enough, less than 24 hours after I reassessed the article, the editor this dispute is about, went trigger happy with the flagging of photos to be deleted; practically wrote me thesis telling me about how I was out of line for doing the reassessment; and then lowered the articles rating back to a C-Class. The editor erroneous flagged many of my photos for deletion, many of the photos were identical to types of photos found in FEATURED ARTICLES from Stuyvesant High School and Baltimore City College.

He also said Misplaced Pages DOES NOT encourage people who have done extensive edits to an article, to do assessments on the same article. That one statement in its self took away any credibility.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have responded with comments to ALL of the photos which were erroneously flagged for deletion, as well as commenting on talk pages. I informed CT Cooper I'd be seeing a dispute resolution.

How do you think we can help?

I would like a third party to (A) make sure that that the editor in question is truly in a position to be a prominent editor, considering all of the erroneous claims made. (B) I'd like another editor, besides CT Cooper, to reassess the article, if it is determined I can not do the assessment myself. (C) It needs to be soundly determined that the editor in question, is thoroughly up-to-date with their understanding of United States copyright laws.

Opening comments by CT Cooper

I've been asked to shorten my statement, which I'm happy to do. My original for the record is here, and the revised version is below at just under 2,000 characters:

I do not accept Maryland Pride's description of past events, for reasons I have already explained at Talk:Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland)#Reassessment (July 2012).

I've been assessing articles for WikiProject Schools for five years and it is a fair point, for which I do not withdraw, that people tend to overestimate the quality of their own work and having an additional set of eyes is appropriate - and I'm far from the only person which believes that - see User talk:CT Cooper/Archive 1#Recent Assessments for example. What Maryland Pride does not appear to understand is the need on this project to recognise ones own conflict of interest, and act as appropriate, and he should have interpreted my comment as advise not as a person criticism.

When I am assessing an article I always go through the images both locally and Commons, because I have lost count the number of cases in which I have encountered copyright problems with the school articles. The alternative is that I just ignore uploads and pretend it isn't an issue, but that would be irresponsible.

I do not accept Maryland Pride's claim that he has attempted to previously resolve this issue. This dispute has only flamed up in the last 24 hours, and Maryland Pride's comments have done little to help resolve it, given the abusive behaviour, including personal accusations about myself which lack evidence.

On Maryland Pride's requests, points (A) and (C) seem to be a demand for retribution rather than to resolve this dispute. Point (B) would be reasonable, except that Maryland Pride has not actually read my assessment beyond the first paragraph per his own claims - and hasn't indicated what parts of my justification for the current article rating are problematic. That said, I would be happy to see someone else review my assessment and find fault in it, if it resulted in Maryland Pride dropping the accusations against me and other editors, and dropping the demands for retribution. CT Cooper · talk 11:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland) discussion

Hmm. Look. I think you need to take a deep breath.

As far as I can see, this dispute orbits around a couple of points: (a) You feel that the article should be assessed at B, and CT Cooper feels that it should be assessed at C; (b) You feel that your images at Commons were erroneously tagged for deletion.

In regards to the assessment of the article, you say that CT Cooper has suggested that editors who have been heavily involved in working up an article should not go on to assess the article. I agree with CT Cooper's position.

The purpose of assessment isn't to differentiate between whether the subject of an article is good or not, or whether the work on the article has been good or not or whatever. The purpose is to bring attention to things that can be further improved about the article's content. It's just a way to make sure that we keep improving our articles.

Rose Bay Secondary College is an article that I have worked on in the past, and needs to be assessed (it is currently unassessed), but I'm not going to do it because that wouldn't serve the purpose of assessment. Someone else will hopefully do it at some stage (or I could ask someone to go over it, but (a) there's still a few things I want to do with it; and (b) I wouldn't have time at the moment to act on anything suggested by an assessment at the moment). Someone could get to it eventually I suppose, no rush.

The tagging of the images over at Commons seems to be a misunderstanding, but you're culpable there. Looking at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Northwestern_High_School_campus_aerial_view,_Hyattsville,_Maryland.jpg, CT Cooper explained why he tagged in quite a reasonable tone. Take what was said as advice instead of taking it personally.

In regards to what you want in terms of "how we can help"... There's just too much emotion there. But, in regards to (B), I agree with the recent comments made by CT Cooper on the article's talk page. There is a pretty good to-do list in terms of areas where the article should be improved to meet the requirements at B, being (and noting that I'm quoting CT Cooper and occasionally paraphrasing):

• the school address in the infobox is over the top (city, county, state, and country is sufficient);
• "rivalries" need to be sourced or removed as WP:SCHOOLCRUFT;
• inappropriate formatting (i.e., bolding of yearbook, newsletter) in the infobox should be removed;
• the Lead has to be a summary of the article with less focus on the school's achievemente per WP:LEAD;
• The history and campus sections should be rewritten per WP:WPSCH/AG to be less fragmentary;
• Further discussion on school uniform, as this is unusual for an American school (btw, wtf);
• Academics section needs a rewrite (besides what CT Cooper has said, I also take issue with each of the academies having logos included in the article, and, if all the points of paragraph are from the same reference, put the ref at the end, not repeatedly all the way through, and it's also way too overly finegrained, not everything needs to be listed);
• Performing arts should be briefer, with less promotional language, and inserted into Extracurricular;
• The language of the article needs to be more neutral; and
• There needs to be more referencing, particularly of interesting/contentious points, and, in fact, extant referencing has to be improved too.

None of the above to-do-list should be especially hard or contentious (because it's all based in wikipedia policy and guidelines). Uhh... Get to it?

As an aside... You really need to try to be a bit more civil. Be WP:CALMer. ˜danjel  11:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Maryland Pride: I can see that you are passionate about this article and subject. You want the article to have a higher assessment grade: that is great! I've gotten several articles to WP:Featured article status, and that is quite rewarding. One thing I can suggest is that you go through a review process on the article. There are two processes that you can use: WP:PEER REVIEW (PR) and Misplaced Pages:Good article nominations (GAN). Both processes involve an independent editor evaluating the article and giving you constructive feedback. You can use PR anytime. If you use the GAN process, and achieve GA status, the article is automatically assessed at "GA" status (if you look at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Schools, you can see that GA status is one level above B status). In other words, you can bypass the project assessors. The project people, I can see, are acting in good faith, and their criticisms are well-intentioned. But, project members do not own articles, and they cannot prevent you from getting the article to GA status. I suggest that you carefully absorb the constructive criticisms on the article you have gotten so far, implement as many as you can, and then nominate the article for WP:Good article status, using the WP:GAN process. Then the article will be assessed at the GA level. If you need help with the GAN process, let me know and I can help. (PS: I concur with just about everything that user Danjel wrote immediately above ... my comments should be viewed as augmenting their comments). --Noleander (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

While I'm sure it well intentioned, I'm afraid I do take issue with treating project assessors, which spend hours and hours of time assessing articles and giving feedback, as some kind of obstruction. There has been a note at WP:WPSCH/A#R for years about WP:PR and the good/featured article processes. Project assessors do not own the article, and nobody has said that they do, but it is completely appropriate that action is taken to ensure that article quality ratings continue to mean something. If Maryland Pride wishes to skip C-class and go straight to GA then he can do so, although it is a far greater jump, and this will not necessarily "bypass" the project assessors. Anyone can be involved in a GA nomination process, and take an article to WP:GAR if it is felt that it has dropped below standards or has been promoted inappropriately. However, I should point out also that I and other editors that review articles have often encouraged editors to go for GA, usually once the article is at safe B-class level, and we have had some successes. CT Cooper · talk 20:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Focus on the Family#Recreational drugs

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Talk:Focus on the Family#Recreational drugs (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• 72Dino (talk · contribs)
• Still-24-45-42-125 (talk · contribs)
• Belchfire (talk · contribs)
• Lionelt (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The Focus on the Family (FOTF) organization has stated that it is against drug abuse. One editor feels the term "recreational drug use" is NPOV and that is "not negotiable" to use the term abuse. A reliable source, the Los Angeles Times, uses ther term "substance abuse" in describing the position of FOTF. This terminology is also acceptable to the editors commenting except for the one. The term "recreational" makes the problem sound benign and is not the term used by the article subject and RS. The discussion on the talk page has reached an impasse.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

Talk page only

How do you think we can help?

A DRN volunteer can provide additional insight into the discussion so that a consensus can be reached.

Opening comments by Still-24-45-42-125

I'll briefly outline my thinking. FotF, in their own words, opposes "drug abuse". If we were quoting them, we'd have to use exactly that term. If we're paraphrasing, however, we're obligated by WP:NPOV to do so with neutral terminology. And we're encouraged to paraphrase rather than quote, precisely so that we can maintain neutrality.

While FotF apparently does not distinguish between drug use and drug abuse, we have to. There are no reliable, neutral sources that equate the two. It's also very misleading. Consider that a slim majority of Americans supports legalization of marijuana, but it would be completely inaccurate and biased to claim they support drug abuse. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who supports drug abuse by that name (or, "substance abuse", or really, anything abuse).

Another possibility would be to say that FotF opposes the use of "illegal drugs", but this is also problematic. They don't oppose these drugs because they're illegal. In fact, they oppose them even when they're legal and they oppose their legalization. So legality is either a side issue or a conclusion, not a reason.

The most neutral term I've found is "the use of recreational drugs", which emphasizes that these are drugs that are primarily used for pleasure and entertainment as opposed to medical need. Some of these drugs also have medical use -- consider MJ -- but FotF opposes them because of their recreational aspect. For this reason, we can't say "recreational drug use", as they also oppose medical marijuana usage.

I believe the objection to "recreational" is that it implies that drugs are fun. I'm not sure what to say about that except that they're misunderstanding the meaning and intent. I consider this term to be about as neutral as possible, and really the only acceptable paraphrase.

If any of you have a viable alternate, I would be glad to consider it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

(This may need to be moved into a "second comment" section, but I don't see one yet. It's a response to Belchfire.)

The summary that Belchfire offers has some serious inaccuracies, but the real problem is that it's irrelevant. According to Misplaced Pages policies, we need to judge the terminology on its own merits, and he has not made any attempt defend his specific desired outcome in terms of policy. He's also made the wild claim that my recommendation constitutes original research, which I can easily refute with citations:

• Precedent - We already have articles that mention "recreational drug use" in the context of FotF (such as Culture war).
• Primary source - There are pages on the FotF site that mention "recreational drug use".
• Secondary sources - There are neutral news media articles that speak directly about FotF's opposition to "recreational drug use".
• Global scope - The NZ branch of FotF also speaks of "recreational drug use".

All told, I think that he's resting his case very prematurely. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Belchfire

First, this is not a new dispute This is actually a continuation of an earlier dispute that in is now closed.

1. This started over specific language in the lead: "It is listed as an anti-gay group by the Southern Poverty Law Center due to its promotion of discrimination against LGBT people, promotion of scientific ignorance, and misrepresentation of research."

2. New wording was agreed to: "It is considered to be an anti-gay group by several organizations."

3. I reorganized the lead per WP:MOSINTRO, preserving the new sentence, without disturbing anything else: However, one editor found this unacceptable (take note of the edit summary):

4. Discussion ensued, and the DRN volunteer was brought back in. Talk:Focus_on_the_Family#Belchfire_gutting_the_lead

5. There were three key points:

• Noleander, DRN volunteer, offered guidance pursuant to MOSINTRO.
• I proposed my re-write. diff (repeated from item 3, above).
• Still-24-45-42-125 offered a counter-proposal:

Focus on the Family (FOTF or FotF) is an American tax-exempt, non-profit organization founded in 1977 by psychologist James Dobson, based in Colorado Springs, Colorado. A component of the Christian right, it is active in promoting an interdenominational effort towards its socially conservative views on public policy. Focus on the Family is one of a number of evangelical parachurch organizations that rose to prominence in the 1980s.

Focus on the Family's stated mission is "nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide." The core promotional activities of the organization include a daily radio broadcast by Dobson and his colleagues, providing free resources and family counseling according to evangelical views, and publishing magazines, videos, and audio recordings. The organization also produces programs for targeted audiences, such as Adventures in Odyssey for children, dramas, and Family Minute with James Dobson. Both Focus on the Family and Adventures in Odyssey are broadcast on Trans World Radio in the UK. Focus on the Family is also currently the primary sponsor for Phil Vischer's JellyTelly.

Focus on the Family opposes abortion, divorce, gambling, gay rights, pornography, pre-marital sex, and recreational drugs. It supports abstinence, adoption by Christians, corporal punishment, creationism, school prayer, strong gender roles, and marriage of Christians only to other Christians.

6. The first two paragraphs were not in dispute at this point. The third paragraph needed adjustments, if it was needed at all. NOTE, Still's proposal did not include the sentence that was worked out in the original dispute.

7. Still-24-45-42-125 left the discussion. I waited until the next day, noting that Still was active on Misplaced Pages, but not participating in Talk. I took what we had agreed on and made it the lead (with trivial changes per discussion, see edit summary).

8. Still-24-45-42-125 then inserted his third paragraph , bypassing the unresolved discussion. Without discussion, there were POV edits and low-level edit-warring. Still-24-45-42-125 then reinserted language that was removed via the DRN.

9. With the dispute put in context, we arrive at the present disagreement concerning the lead. The phrase "recreational drugs" is original research. FotF does not use the phrase in any reliable source he has been able to produce. In the the discussion, he plainly has to use his own reasoning to obtain it. Four other editors have made source-based arguments for "drug abuse" or "substance abuse", which Still-24-45-42-125 refuses to accept.

While 72Dino should be commended for pursuing maximal agreement, all should be aware (and in some cases, reminded) that unanimity is NOT a requirement for consensus. Moreover, allowing a single editor to halt the collaborative process is not in the best interest of Misplaced Pages. There are numerous policies and essays guiding those holding a minority view that, for the good of the encyclopedia, they are to acknowledge when they are out of step with more widely-held views, and move on. In fact, this is one of Misplaced Pages's core values, and it often marks the difference between a collaborative and a disruptive editor. Belchfire-TALK 19:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Lionelt

FOTF uses "drug abuse." Los Angeles Times uses "problems of chemical substance abuse." The sources presented make a strong case for "substance abuse" or similiar--not recreational drug use.– Lionel 11:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Focus on the Family#Recreational drugs discussion

I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes.

I am just starting to look at the edit history and the previous DRN filing, so it may be a day or so before I am up to speed. In the meantime I invite other DRN volunteers to weigh in on this dispute.

In case you were wondering about the 2000 character limit, this was filed before we added that, so it is under the old rules. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The trimming of the lead (lede, prose) seems not significant as readers can go down to see more information. The parts removed are not the most important aspects of the article. "Recreational drugs" is a different thing than drug abuse (or substance abuse). <adjective> drugs is a category of drugs, while that drug (or substance) abuse means misusing drugs. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 12:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

May I respond here? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hello. I am also a volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I've read over the previous DRN discussion, and initially, it didn't seem as clear cut as I thought it would be, but after consideration I think it's quite clear. Looking at the talk page, one editor made comment that because FotF is opposed to all recreational drugs, so this should be what's in the lede, as opposed to something like "substance abuse". Reading over the previous DRN discussion as well as the article talk page, I cannot see where a reliable source was produced where FotF's viewpoint was described as opposed to recreational drug use, however this source, which interviewed the founder and president of the organisation, stated "They deal with the disciplining of children, self-esteem, handling rebellious teens, handling problems of chemical substance abuse as well as...". This is a direct quote from someone heavily involved with the organisation, documented in a reliable source. So my first thought would be to go by that - but there's another aspect to things. If the lede described FotF as opposed to all recreational drugs, we have to consider how a reader will interpret that. The article on recreational drug use includes things like tea, coffee and over the counter medications. The previously proposed text seems to indicate this organisation is opposed to the existence of these - again not supported by reliable sources. It could be something like "Focus on the Family opposes abortion, divorce, gambling, gay rights, pornography, pre-marital sex, and the abuse of chemical substances.. Remember: The lede summarises the article. Detail further down the article that they are opposed to the use of all substances regardless of their legality (If that's whats reflected in reliable sources) but start with something like this. Steven Zhang 12:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ebe, Steven, I'd like you to take a look at http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/teen_booklets/vicious-truth-about-drugs-and-alcohol.aspx and search for the word "recreation". This is one of FotF's pamphlets, and it directly opposes recreational drug use, in as many words. No synthesis is necessary; it's right there in the original source.

As for the quote you used, it does make sense to say that they offer information about "handling problems of chemical substance abuse" because that's a statement about what services they offer, not what they're for or against. Plenty of organizations, such as sports leagues, happen to oppose drug (or "chemical substance") abuse but don't offer related services because it's out of their scope.

On the other hand, the sentences in the article lead are about policy, not services. We simply list what they oppose and what they support, regardless of whether they provide services (ministries). Saying they oppose drug abuse is misleading, because almost anyone you ask opposes abuse. Instead, we could just take them at their word by saying they oppose the use of recreational drugs. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The source provided uses the word "recreation" six times, five of which are in a paragraph about the use of marijuana. For what it's worth, the word abuse is on that page nine times. I don't think the amount of times a word appears on a page is definitive evidence - it's use in reliable sources. I again advise you to read the article on recreational drug use - if added this would essentially say that FotF is opposed to the consumption of tea or use of paracetamol (which they might be, but again, needs to be in reliable sources). Until then, something like "...and the abuse of substances" or something along these lines, seems the way to go here. Regards, Steven Zhang 13:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There is an inconsistency between sites, and anyway, I have stated no preference between the two terms. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 13:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There's no controversy about the fact that accepts that FotF opposes drug abuse aka substance abuse aka chemical substance abuse. The problem is that almost everyone opposes abuse, so this carries no information. Even worse, the choice of words violates WP:NPOV.

Like many who oppose recreational drug use, FoTF does so on the basis of the highly controversial belief that there is no such thing; that all recreational use is actually abusive. FotF makes precisely this claim in their tract -- "There's nothing 'recreational' about it." So if we follow their lead by speaking of drug abuse when the real issue is recreational drug use, we're endorsing their non-neutral view. Misplaced Pages would be agreeing with FotF about whether you can use drugs without abusing them!

One source of confusion is that the recreational drug use article has its own content issues, leading to a misleadingly broad definition. Fortunately, Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source for definitions, so we aren't allowed to trust it. If we go to primary sources, like m-w.com, we find:

a drug (as cocaine, marijuana, or methamphetamine) used without medical justification for its psychoactive effects often in the belief that occasional use of such a substance is not habit-forming or addictive

Cocaine, marijuana and methamphetamine, not tea. This is precisely what FotF opposes the use of and it's a neutral dictionary term that doesn't violate WP:NPOV. If you wish to suggest "drug abuse", please explain how this doesn't violate WP:NPOV. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We call it attributing the point of view to the source - but I don't think that's necessary here at all. We go off what's in reliable sources - and that's what has been discussed previously. If you have a reliable source where FotF clearly states they oppose recreational drug use, then please produce it - we cannot change words in an article simply because we believe they are not neutral. Comes back to attributing POV. If other volunteers could monitor this thread overnight, would be appreciated. I'm going to bed. Steven Zhang 13:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm monitoring it for now. I can say that marijuana is habit-forming but not addictive while cocaine and methamphetamine (and all amphetamines) are addictive. Drug abuse is as acceptable to say as recreational drug use. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 13:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

While I'd prefer a neutral paraphrase to an attributed POV, and I'm confident that the tract shows FotF opposes recreational drug use, I'm willing to compromise so long as we follow policy. If we said something like "what it considers to be drug abuse", that would be compliant with WP:NPOV.

The only problem is that it's only a matter of time before someone cuts it down to "drug abuse", either by claiming WP:WEASEL or just as a side-effect of tightening it up. What if we left a hidden comment so that future editors know that this exact phrasing was chosen to avoid POV and should not be carelessly changed? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - The FOTF's own policy statements use terms like "drug abuse" and "alcohol abuse". It is clear from their policy statements that they are not opposed, for example, to recreational drinking. Using the term "recreational drugs" in the article would impart a meaning that would be a bit misleading to readers. Unless a significant source is found that explicitly uses the term "recreational" vis-a-vis FOTF, it would not be appropriate to use it in the article. (PS: I'm glad to see that the article now has a 3-paragraph lead, mirroring the body of the article). --Noleander (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Alcohol is an edge case, so you can't generalize from it. Along with tobacco and caffeine, it constitutes an unprincipled exception from their general claim that there's no such thing as recreational drug use.

But they do make that general claim directly in their tract, and there's no clearer form of opposition than denial of existence. Compare this to how FotF denies the existence of the categories of church/state separation, gay rights and the right to choose (to abort an unwanted pregnancy).

If we say "FotF opposes drug abuse" that would be like saying "FotF opposes so-called gay rights". Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So what do you want the article to say now? ~~Ebe123~~ → report 14:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I still think "recreational drug use" is best, but something like "what it considers to be drug abuse" is a reasonable compromise if we can make it stick. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

@Still24: I understand your point, and I agree that WP's article should not soft-pedal any public criticism of FOTF. But the facts are (1) many, many mainstream US organizations oppose recreational drug use (e.g. occasional use of marijuana); (2) that commonly held position is often called opposition to "drug abuse"; (3) the FOTF position is comparable to these many mainstream organizations. Unless a source is provided which specifically denominates the FOTF position as "opposition to recreational drug use", WP cannot use that particular terminology. Still24: can you provide some quotes from sources about FOTF that talk about "recreational drug use". For example, above you say FOTF has a "general claim that there's no such thing as recreational drug use." Can you provide some quotes from sources on that, and we can go from there? --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I did. If you'll pardon the large quote, here's what they write in that tract :

People may use all of these drugs recreationally and insist they're safe. But they ignore volumes of evidence to the contrary.

Recreation. The word conjures up images of football and baseball, going to the beach or catching a movie. Harmless stuff, right? Perhaps that's why users like to link it with their habit. But even marijuana, supposedly the "softest" of drugs, is more gamble than game.

Let's imagine a common "recreational" smoker. She lights up only on the weekends, at parties, maybe special occasions. "No big deal," you say. "If she wants to get high on the weekends it's her business. It won't affect her life anyway." Not so. THC, the active ingredient in the cocktail of chemicals that marijuana releases, stores itself in fatty tissues and hangs around for a while. Three or four days after that initial hit, the user is still affected to one degree or another, whether she knows it or not. Most don't. In fact, should our user choose to smoke one joint per week for the rest of her life, she'd be continually stoned until the moment she died.

It would be bad enough if our "recreational" friend only had to deal with decreased motor skills, inhibited concentration, reduced memory, loss of coordination and uncontrollable attacks of "the munchies." But the hallucinogenic high of cannabis comes with another, less welcome side effect: psychological and physical addiction. The movement from casual, recreational use to hard core is often faster than expected. And hard-core users suffer from far more serious ailments. Chronic bronchitis. Damage to the immune system. Impotence. Personality disorders. Schizophrenia. Not to mention the law of "decreased marginal utility": What once sent you soaring will soon barely affect you.4

Let's face it. Though it's not heroin or crack, pot's still dangerous. There's nothing "recreational" about it. "Marijuana addicts, in particular, tend to believe that they must be 'OK' since there are much worse drugs, and other people whose lives are much worse off as a result of their using. That is denial."

I think this very clearly shows their opposition to recreational drug use. What do you think? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that is what we need. Ideally, we'd have a secondary source, but an organization's own publications can be used to support article statements about the organizations policies. Based on the above source (since the "recreation" terminology is in a section only about marijuana) perhaps the article could include wording like "FOTF advocates against drug abuse, including occasional use of marijuana" or "FOTF advocates against drug abuse, including recreational use of marijuana". Note that the FOTF document is not explicitly about recreational use: the recreational text is within the broader context of opposing drug abuse in general; therefore it would be misleading to only say "FOTF opposes recreational mj use" since that makes it seem like they are silly because they focus on recreational use to the exclusion of alcoholism, etc. Thoughts? --Noleander (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we have secondary sources, too. Try this one. . Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's not only about MJ. Here's the full first paragraph:

Maybe you've heard this one: "I'm not going to get addicted. I'm going to smoke a joint here and there, drop a little Ecstasy, kick back with some friends and have a beer." People may use all of these drugs recreationally and insist they're safe. But they ignore volumes of evidence to the contrary.

They include MJ, Ecstasy and beer in their list of recreational drugs. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that PBS source is a good source (apologies for not noticing it above in this thread). That source says "Focus on the Family, the giant among Colorado Springs’ evangelical groups, opposed the legalization of medical marijuana in 2000 and plans to fight any ballot measure this year to allow recreational use of the drug." That definitely supports the wording in the Lead such as: "FOTF advocates against drug abuse, including recreational use of marijuana"; or perhaps "FOTF advocates against drug abuse, including recreational or medicinal use of marijuana". The details about the ballot measure are probably better off in the article body than the lead. As for the Ecstasy example: I'm not seeing a formal, clear policy statement there that could go in the Lead section. It is more of an anecdotal, informal introductory paragraph. To go in the lead, it needs to be crystal clear. --Noleander (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The tract I quoted from at length is an official FotF publication and it very clearly lumps MJ in with alcohol and Ecstasy, arguing against recreational use of any of them. I'm not sure how detailed we can expect our sources to be. I mean, how many specific drugs would we have to have FotF name before we could say "they oppose recreational drug use"? If you look at other primary sources, there's no reason at all to think that they mysteriously sanction LSD or nitrous oxide. Take a read: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/lifechallenges/abuse_and_addiction/substance_abuse.aspx Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a sample paragraph from later in the article I just linked:

You may improve the odds by making it clear that you consider the use of cigarettes, alcohol or illegal drugs a very serious matter. If your adolescent confesses that he tried a cigarette or a beer at a party and expresses an appropriate resolve to avoid a repeat performance, a heart-to-heart conversation would be more appropriate than grounding him for six months.

As you can see, they explicitly oppose cigarettes, alcohol and illegal drugs. On the same page, they also speak of locking up the medicine cabinet to prevent recreational use of otherwise medically necessary drugs. And so on. It's all there. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That latter tract is specifically addressed at alcohol/drugs/cig usage by children: it is guidance to parents. So, we cannot use that as a source for a broader statement that FOTF is "opposed to recreational drug use" in general. How about this wording for the Lead: "FOTF advocates against drug abuse, including recreational use of illegal drugs." .. that would include Ecstasy, but exclude alcohol. --Noleander (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

To suggest that recreational use of illegal drugs is drug abuse would be POV. To suggest that they're only opposed to recreational drug use by non-adults would be false; consider the PBS article. In fact, if you read http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/parenting_challenges/kids-and-substance-abuse/reducing-the-risk-for-substance-abuse.aspx, you'll see it tells parents to set a good example by quitting or reducing recreational drug use (including smoking and drinking). In specific:

Finally, if you use marijuana and other street drugs, whether for recreation or because of an addiction problem, you are putting the parental stamp of approval not only on the drugs but also on breaking the law. For your own and your family's sake, seek help immediately and end this dangerous behavior.

All of our sources support simply saying they're opposed to recreational drug use. Everything else is either inaccurate, POV or both. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Still24: Let me ask you this question: Would you agree that the FOTF's position on recreation drugs is part of a broader policy FOTF has on drug & alcohol use/abuse? The answer is "yes", so then then next question is: Would you agree that the Lead should contain a statement about the FOTFs broader policy, rather than only a statement about their narrower position on recreational drugs? --Noleander (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

To be frank, no, and I'll tell you why: In the primary source I was most recently quoting from, the FotF-sanctioned author admits that someone can use drugs without being an addict yet opposes drug use anyhow. This isn't opposition to abuse. In fact, it even opposes using prescription pain-relief drugs too eagerly!

Now, I'm not saying that they'd oppose insulin for diabetics or anything crazy like that, but I think it's fair to say that they are generally against drug use of any sort. One way to say this would be that they oppose "excessive drug use", where the adjective is intentionally vague. That would not violate WP:NPOV and it might be something that other editors are willing to live with. What do you think? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that you might want to suggest it on the talk page. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me that wording acceptable to the other parties has already been endorsed. In the early stages of this discussion, Still-24-45-45-125 said, "There's no controversy about the fact that accepts that FotF opposes drug abuse aka substance abuse aka chemical substance abuse." If this is the case, I'm not quite sure why we needed DRN, since the other 3 parties to the dispute all contend for that wording. Why are we still arguing about it? Let's ask Still-24 to select which of "drug abuse" or "substance abuse" is acceptable to him (which is, in fact, compromising with him), and we can wrap this up. I remind, consensus need not be unanimous, although it would appear we have achieved unanimity here, perhaps without realizing. Belchfire-TALK 18:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree with the claim that this has been resolved? Is there anything more we need to do here, or can this be closed as resolved? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it's resolved, but lets wait for Still-24-45-42-125 response. If he does not comment in 1 day, we could close this. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 21:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, it's not resolved, but we've made some progress. (Belchfire read a single line out of context, so he misunderstood).

There are now a few viable options:

1. "recreational drug use"
2. "excessive drug use"
3. "what they consider to be drug abuse"

This is roughly my order of preference, but all three avoid problems with WP:NPOV. In contrast, "drug abuse" is POV. I'll bring these three to the talk page and see if we can get some movement forward. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As you are taking it back to the talk page, I think we can close it now. Come back if there is any more disputes. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

While it is back at the talk page, I would be nice to keep this open to retain the comment thread. If resolution is met there, then I would say it is okay to close. Just a suggestion to the volunteers. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 01:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait. What? Still-24 just declared his disagreement here, then went back to the Talk page and declared the dispute was resolved in his favor diff. Do you agree with that assessment, Ebe? How long does this go on before we decide this is simply a case of WP:IDHT? If we close this dispute without making a decision that other editors can point back to, we'll just be back here again in three days trying resolve the very same problem (which is exactly why we are here right now). Belchfire-TALK 01:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with a editor going to the talkpage to say he won the war without negotiations. A discussion will be held about what option to go with. We all know that this is a case of IDHT but we must continue. We have no binding power here anyways. I personally would prefer "problematic drug use". ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Would it make any sense to conduct a straw poll? To clarify my concerns, what we need to stave off, if possible, is ambiguity. Let's figure out the actual, true consensus view and illustrate it, so that it can't be gas-lighted. Belchfire-TALK 01:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Problematic use seems better than recreational use as recreational use is not always bad, excessive drug use has many variables (age, weight, substance) as opposed to problematic use of which is an accepted term as used in the diagram. Also, it's not used in the article, so can give a change that all editors might agree with. How about a straw poll here. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Here are the options for the straw poll:

1. "recreational drug use"
2. "excessive drug use"
3. "drug abuse"
4. "substance abuse" (as used in Substance abuse)
5. "problematic drug use"
6. "what they consider to be drug abuse"

To vote, add the number of your choice and sign below. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Ebe, where do "problematic" and "excessive" come from? Did you pull either of those from a source related in any way to FotF? If not, how could we conceivably use either term without OR? This issue is not nearly as complicated as it's being made out to be. From what I have seen, we have exactly three choices that can be tied to sources, primary or secondary.

1. recreational drug use
2. drug abuse
3. substance abuse

If your other two choices can be shown to come from RS's, I am open to them. If not, then I am flabbergasted that a veteran Wikipedian such as yourself would put them on the table in a dispute where OR is at the root of the disagreement. Belchfire-TALK 01:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Be flabbergasted if you will, but I did add them. Wrongly though. I am not defining an option with an article, mearly stating that wikipedia's article on that subject is named Substance abuse without saying "Vote for this, wikipedia has a page on it". It is not a source (if it were, then I would put sources on each one). ~~Ebe123~~ → report 02:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Number 4, as stated in reliable sources. In case the numbering changes, that means "substance abuse." 72Dino (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And I will add, the notion of defining "substance abuse" by our own article on the subject is faulty. Misplaced Pages is never a source for Misplaced Pages articles, and viewing it as you suggest is blatant SYNTH. We have "substance abuse" as an option purely because a RS used the term in relation to FotF. No other reason. We are not here to define it or clarify it on behalf of FotF; we are merely trying to accurately present FotF's positions in a supportable, encyclopedic manner. Belchfire-TALK 01:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And now, my own vote. "Substance abuse" (numeral unclear).

An important point that I don't think has been made in this very long discussion is that the organisation is not really a reliable source for characterising its own stance. We wouldn't say in WP voice that the Ku Klux Klan is opposed to the crime of race-mixing, would we? Or that NAMBLA supports the human right to inter-generational sex. We can only really describe FOTF as opposed to "drug abuse" if they are tolerant of my daily but highly responsible use of crack cocaine. Formerip (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. My argument all along has been that repeating the organization's self-description violates WP:NPOV and is inaccurate. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

These obey WP:NPOV so I would accept them, in order of preference:

• "recreational drug use"
• "excessive drug use"
• "problematic drug use"
• "what they consider to be drug abuse"

These do not, so we'd have to go to RfC or whatever comes next. We can't allow WP:NPOV violations in the article:

• "substance abuse"
• "drug abuse"

That's a comprehensive summary of my view. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Political positions of Mitt Romney

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Political positions of Mitt Romney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

• Still-24-45-42-125 (talk · contribs)
• Belchfire (talk · contribs)
• ViriiK (talk · contribs)
• Lionelt (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Belchfire made a series of edits that removed a large amount of content from the article, including all mention of Romney's creationism and many essential details about his shifting views on abortion. I carefully reverted some of the changes while keeping others. Now there is a dispute over whether to keep any of the deleted material.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I opened up a Talk section. So far, I have not been able to get Belchfire to come to the table and explain why he deleted so much. ViriiK's participation has been, in my opinion, evasive and unproductive.

How do you think we can help?

I imagine that you could get Belchfire to participate in the discussion and explain what his edit comments hinted at. Perhaps you can get ViriiK to stop playing burden tennis, too, but that's not as important.

I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Please remove the above comment about WP:LEGAL. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for resolving disputes about article content, not user conduct. If you still have an issue about user conduct after we resolve the article content issues, I will direct you to the right place to deal with them. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! I will be deleting the above note after a day or so. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Belchfire

I'm not sure that this disagreement is resolvable at DRN, for a several reasons.

First, this isn't a "small content dispute" (quoted from the top of this page). The triggering event was a single reversion (diff) that undid more than 10K of incremental edits (about 8-10 of them, I believe) undertaken over a period of 7 days.

Second, this issue has not been "discussed extensively on a talk page" (quoting from above again). Still-24 initiated this process before any discussion could take place. We can see by comparing these diffs, from the article and from Talk, that he announced his intent to launch DRN just 27 minutes after the last edit. Mind you, this was before I even had a chance to respond. I actually received the DRN notice at :14 minutes after the hour diff, just as I was posting my response in Talk diff, at :16 after the hour.

And finally, once again quoting from the top of the page, this noticeboard is not supposed to be used "where conduct issues arise in the course of content disputes." Arguably, this is precisely such a situation.
I misread one of the guideposts when I was composing this, missing the word "do" in the phrase "However, we do accept disputes..." This partly explains one of Guy's responses to my remarks below. However, I refer back to the beginning of that bullet point, wherein it is explained that DRN is "not a place to deal with disputes that solely concern user conduct...", and I want to point out that content disputes can easily mask an underlying conduct issue. Similarly, DRN can be abused to foreclose an AN/I complaint, which may very well be the place this dispute would have gone, had this DRN not been initiated preemptively.

Now, I'm more than willing to discuss my edits, that's not a problem. But I just want to caution the DRN volunteers and the other participants that, due to the sheer size and scope of Still-24's reversion, the discrete changes accumulated over a full week of re-writing sections of a good size article probably number in the neighborhood of 3-4 dozen, and the changes deserve to be dealt with individually. Based on my understanding, that's well outside the scope of how this noticeboard is supposed to function.

So, I offer that this DRN should probably be suspended, if not closed altogether, while the normal means of collaboration are given an opportunity to succeed. Belchfire-TALK 20:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by ViriiK

I've been an editor here for years and I frankly enjoy it. Now this just happened to be the first time I've been involved in a dispute resolution for unknown reasons except Still-IP.

My question still remains that Still-IP needs to answer: Are there any changes in particular that you object to? ViriiK (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Then I have no choice but to abstain from this. ViriiK (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Please rewrite the above so that it only discusses article content. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard is for resolving disputes about article content, not user conduct. If you still have an issue about user conduct after we resolve the article content issues, I will direct you to the right place to deal with them. Also, the above is 2500 characters, which is above our 2000 character limit, so please shorten it a bit. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Better, but still needs to have the parts that are talking about other editors removed. Try it without "This user", "He", You", "They" or any names. (Exception: a neutral description such as "User X deleted the content here (with a diff)" may be OK, as long as the focus is on the content, not the user.) At this point, we don't care what misbehavior, real or imagined, other editors did or did not do previous to DRN. I assure you that misbehavior will not be allowed here, so please drop the complaints about other users so we all can make a fresh start. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

User made another edit without deleting the complaints about other users above, so I deleted them for him. My stricken comments above will be deleted in a day or two. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by Lionelt

The first thing I would like to say is that in no way, shape or fashion could Still-24-45-42-125's action be described as "carefully reverted." In less that an hour he racked up 3 reverts . He only stopped edit warring when Belchfire placed a warning on his talk . I realize this board does not handle behaviorial issues: I post this because Still wrote "carefully reverted" when this wasn't the case and it goes to credibility.

Regarding the substance of the issue, Belchfire did explain his edits. In the edit summaries and on the talk page. His reasoning included: off-topic, irrelevant, partisan cruft, content from 2007, etc. The only issue here is that Still doesn't like the edit and likes the explanation even less. WP:IDONTLIKE. – Lionel 11:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it is fair to allow a short statement disputing the "carefully reverted" claim, but I ask everyone to please leave it at that rather than making further comments about user behavior. We really want to focus on article content. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment by Collect

Again the "political silly season" edits occur - and one is reminded of those who sought edits saying Sarah Palin believed dinosaurs were "Jesus ponies" etc. The use of "religious tenets" of any sort as political ammunition is abhorrent to anyone who actually cares about genuine political issues. One may, if one wishes, look at the nature of edits by any specific editor and find those who are most egregious pushers of the "silly season edits." The case at hand is, alas, one precisely in that category. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Misplaced Pages Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Please comment on article content, not user conduct. If you still have an issue about user conduct after we resolve the article content issues, I will direct you to the right place to deal with them. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. My comments were directed exactly at the content of edits during the political silly season, and did not single out any particular editor nor make any untoward comments about any particular editor. The content issue boils down to:

Should political BLPs make a big deal over theological issues which are actually neither political issues nor biographical issues?

Which I think is sufficiently concise, indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Political positions of Mitt Romney discussion

Please do not use this for discussing the dispute prior to a volunteer opening the thread for comments - continue discussing the issues on the article talk page if necessary.

Note: I am going to wait a day or so until Belchfire either makes a statement or it becomes clear that he isn't going to make one before opening this up for discussion. Also, I noticed that some of you have participated in previous dispute resolutions. Please be aware that the rules have changed. We were getting long threads with multiple issues that were very hard for the volunteers to keep track of. The new DR procedures are designed to keep the statements concise and to the point. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I am waiting too. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 11:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll be watching this one as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Because we are trying something new, everyone should feel free to go to Misplaced Pages talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard and comment on whether we should handle this case differently, leaving the discussion about the Political positions of Mitt Romney here. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I am now opening this for discussion. I ask everyone to please be concise, and to focus on article content, not user conduct. If someone makes a claim and someone else disputes it, leave it at that. We can evaluate the claim / counterclaim without a long discussion about who's argument makes sense. Be calm cool, logical, and provide evidence for anything that is likely to be disputed. Thanks!

So, disputed content: retain or delete? Or keep part of it? Or modify it in some way? I am looking for a rough idea of how many editors support each of those options. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a listed party in the dispute - I try to avoid WP:DRAMA - but I've done lots of work on Romney-related articles. I've taken a look at this and put my comments at Talk:Political positions of Mitt Romney#Trimming too much. Executive summary: I think a few of the removals were unwise and should be reversed or modified, but the article was indeed in need of an overhaul and I don't see a systemic problem in what Belchfire did. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Guy, with all due respect, you seem to be blowing right by the opening statements made by Lionel, ViriiK, and myself. This is not really a content issue. Moreover, I've seen how this process works, and it's not unreasonable to surmise that we could be here for weeks if we try to follow the usual approach. Please, I would like to see Virii and Lionel weigh-in on what I just said before we try to proceed with this any further. We have a square problem here, and DRN is a round hole. Belchfire-TALK 21:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If, as you claim, this is not a content dispute, how do you explain the following edits? Diff1Diff2Diff3Diff4Diff5Diff6 That sure looks like a content dispute to me.

I am not blowing right by the opening statements. I am in the early stages of getting everyone focused on content instead of conduct. As for this taking weeks, I suggest waiting a few days to see whether progress is being made before worrying about that. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: I just reverted a comment that was a complaint about other users. Don't do that. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

So, as for the content that was disputed here: Diff1Diff2Diff3Diff4Diff5Diff6 Retain or delete? Or keep part of it? Or modify it in some way? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess you could say in a nutshell that three of us have already defined our positions on that. All six of those diffs are back and forth reverts of the exact same content, which I had edited out, Still-24 put back in, and VirriK reverted back out. If consensus here is limited to the four parties in the dispute, three of us have already spoken. I suppose we could wait for Lionel to check-in. Belchfire-TALK 23:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the edit which they warred to prevent, it comes down to a few specific changes:

1. I restored the well-cited statement that Romneycare is a lot like Obamacare, for NPOV.
2. I restored the entire (large) Abortion section. Romney's views are nuanced and appear to have evolved and the cut-down version was neither accurate nor neutral. It's possible that it can be trimmed without running into these issues, but Belchfire did not succeed.
3. I restored the entire (small) Evolution section. Romney's views are well-cited and entirely relevant, given how nuanced his view is and how important it is to his base.

These are the content issues. I understand that some people want to take the counterproductive step of making this personal, but I'm not interested in drama. I'm here to fix a broken article. I welcome comments about these three content issues. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Before we get too deep into the reasons why this particular often-reverted text should stay or go (reasons which are important), I want to make a quick consensus check. Who (not limited to those who are named or have have posted on DRN) agrees with you? Who opposes? If the consensus is overwhelmingly in one direction and neither version violates a Misplaced Pages policy, then the editor with the minority view needs to convince someone else if he hopes to ever have his way, and the majority really needs to pay attention to his arguments and explain why they oppose. All of this needs to happen in a friendly and collegial atmosphere; we all want what is best for the article and for the encyclopedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose (I support Belchfire changes & Wasted objections): Belchfire's changes were with good intentions and detailed in why he made the changes and Wasted took objections to some of the content which were put back. The issue if there was one is resolved between those two editors. I supported Belchfire in making the content changes which the revert did not have an explanation at the time. ViriiK (talk) 01:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose (discussion of reasons reserved for when we reach that point) Belchfire-TALK 01:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, by my count I have:

Objects to removal: Still-24-45-42-125

Supports removal: ViriiK, Belchfire, Lionelt

Partially supports removal, wants some put back in: Wasted Time R

Could not tell what position is: Collect

Let's talk about Wasted Time R's suggestions.

Still-24-45-42-125, could you live with Wasted Time R's suggestions, or will you only be happy if it all goes back in?

ViriiK, Belchfire and Lionelt, could you live with Wasted Time R's suggestions, or will you only be happy if it all stays out?

How about partial agreement? Can we agree on even a small portion? ViriiK, Belchfire, Lionelt, is there anything you can live with retaining? Still-24-45-42-125 is there anything you can live with deleting? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm generally happy with Wasted Time's work. I'm not sure how it addresses the three specific deleted items, though. So far, I haven't seen anyone even try to explain why we shouldn't mention RomneyCare's well-noted similarities to ObamaCare or Romney's views on evolution. Likewise, I haven't seen anyone defend the neutrality of the much-reduced Abortion section. This is the actual content dispute, but I don't see anyone talking about it. If you just want to count heads and ignore policies, the dispute resolution will have failed, and it's off to the next step, which I believe is an RfC. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

A three vs. one consensus is generally enough to settle a content dispute, but I am still shooting for an agreement or compromise. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget Lionel. Belchfire-TALK 02:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Guy, I'm not against collaborative reversion per BRD and I welcome reasoned critique and adjustment of my edits, such as we have seen from Wasted Time R. Belchfire-TALK 02:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at the deleted content, and Wasted's thoughtful suggestions, and I think Belchfire did not delete enough. The article is a rambling, meandering hodge podge and I think as editors we should be embarassed at the state of the article of a presidential candidate.– Lionel 02:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I was fine with deleting all while subjecting all the edits to changes in the discussion pages as I did in the first place with a valid reasons on why they need to be kept or removed. When I looked at Belchfire's changes, he did remove a lot that were valid. ViriiK (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't remember seeing these valid reasons. Perhaps you could share them here. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing 4-1 consensus favoring status quo ante and a resumption of collaboration between willing editors. Is that a fair assessment? Belchfire-TALK 02:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't remember? "Are there any changes in particular that you object to?" I've pasted this question at least 3 times to you and you avoided answering that question every time. ViriiK (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Your summary is incorrect. I posted on the talk page and asked Belchfire to explain. He has yet to do so. I've asked him again, just now, and he's still unwilling to do so. You're not Belchfire and you can't answer for him. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You asked me "but I don't remember seeing these valid reasons." How was I representing Belchfire? Hint: I wasn't. Again you don't remember? "Are there any changes in particular that you object to?" I've pasted this question at least 3 times to you and you avoided answering that question every time. ViriiK (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Belchfire. Now that you're here, perhaps you could answer the question I asked above. I think that would be helpful in determining the reason for this content dispute. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hint: we're trying to resolve a content dispute. The only thing that will help at this point would be for Belchfire to justify deleting the three items I mentioned. Anything else, including your quest to find behavioral issues in everyone but yourself, is a distraction. Thanks, but I'd prefer not to be distracted. It's counterproductive.

Belchfire, I'm asking again. Please share your reasoning so that we can resolve this content dispute. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a volunteer here at DRN...and I gotta say...whoa! Slow discussion down guys! I'm putting a hold on this thread - I don't want any discussion to take place until Belchfire has made further comment, but I see a consensus here too. We must be extremely careful about the content that we put in BLPs. It's better to err on the side of caution in most cases - I would advise all here to carefully review that policy, and remember that administrators have the power to impose sanctions against editors or topic areas for violations of the policy. But yeah, let's wait for Belchfire to make further comment. Steven Zhang 03:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Steve, unless I misunderstand, what Still-24 is asking for is an explanation for the series of edits he reverted. He says I never gave one in response to his query, but I did, and it's been posted on the article Talk page since last night at the same time this DRN was opened. I offered the diff in my opening statement, but here it is again: I elected not to respond to these repeat requests because, quite frankly, Still-24 has seen that explanation and he knows it's there. Belchfire-TALK 04:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Guys, I filed this request because I couldn't get Belchfire to offer a clear explanation for his edits. Why did he remove the section on Evolution? Why did he remove the part about ObamaCare and RomneyCare? Why did he strip out most of the section on Abortion and leave it POV? These are fair questions. I await a candid and comprehensive answer. I am prepared to escalate as needed until this is resolved, so you might as well just answer me, Belchfire. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems he did provide an explanation. And that tone can easily be perceived as hostile. An attempt to strong-arm your way rather then work with the editor even after he explained himself is not a good thing. More so since your own reply came after his and ignores his own post in which this information is revealed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is factually incorrect. I have repeatedly requested that he provide a specific reason for the removal of each of these pieces. He has repeatedly refused to.

If you disagree, feel free to prove me wrong by telling me what his specific reasons are. I'm betting you won't be able to, precisely because he's never shared them. If he has no stated reasons, then we can only assume that he has no good reasons. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:2012 Burgas bus bombing talk page

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

• Burgas bus bombing article talk page
• Somedifferentstuff talk page (content was moved to article talk page, but originally happened here)

Users involved

• Activism1234 (talk · contribs)
• Somedifferentstuff (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

Redundant passage is written in the article. A reference at the end is given to July 22, and I have argued that the author likely repeated what she wrote on July 21 (as it was very similar), which was already stated on July 20 (article was on July 21 either b/c that's when she submitted article, or repeated it for context...). The July 20 statement is mentioned above in a different passage already, and is fine. The new passage seems redundant, and the referenced article isn't focused on the passage either, which I used to show she was just repeating what she wrote before for context or info. The other editor has argued that it's possible the statement was said twice on two different days, but I have argued there is no proof for this, and gave other examples showing media outlets repeating information stated previously for context.

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I've tried asking an administrator, who referred me to Third Opinion. Third Opinion rejected it, since the dispute was at Somedifferentstuff's talk page, rather than the article's talk page.

How do you think we can help?

Just by saying whether you feel that the passage should be included again with a reference to an article two days later.

Opening comments by Somedifferentstuff

Please limit to 2000 characters - longer statements may be deleted in their entirety or asked to be shortened. This is so a volunteer can review the dispute in a timely manner. Thanks.

• Dispute resolution noticeboard
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution