Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 40

Harvard University (Notable people)


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?




 * 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  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
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' 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 Wikipedia 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) (contribs) 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 Wikipedia lists because it is not practical for them to click through every single link on a page like this. If we want Wikipedia 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:
 * mistaking the observation that categories don't carry disclaimers for a principle, rather than a fact that informs the principles;
 * extending that nonexistent "principle" to lists and assuming that a lack of disclaimers eliminates the need for citations
 * 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)


 * We've of course already seen that post. Pointing it out again isn't going to help anyone better understand the argument that you think it's making.


 * It seems as though you may be fully and irreversibly convinced that BLPCAT somehow permits large sections of uncited material. However, it also seems that everyone else has agreed that BLPCAT is not relevant to this question. So we have to move on to the next question: What does apply to the material?


 * I think WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:BLP more broadly are good places to start. All of them require the addition of inline citations for any material that has been challenged, such as the material we're discussing here. Since there is no consensus for your interpretation of BLPCAT, I think the WP:BURDEN is on you to convince the community why this material is an exception to those other rules. — Bdb484 (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Bulgaria


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/wiki/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/wiki/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?



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  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:

And it was changed to:

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:


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


 * And, summarizing the options listed earlier, there are four paths forward:
 * Use a "Independence" scheme, with 1878 & 1908
 * Use a "Formation" scheme, with 681, 1878 & 1908
 * Use a "Formation" scheme with 681 & 1185
 * 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 A ? 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/wiki/Peter_IV_of_Bulgaria, even Bulgaria was separated in its own Roman province called Bulgaria http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/wiki/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 A ? 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:


 * 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 A ? 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)


 * 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)


 * 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 A ? 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 A ? 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 A ? 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 Wikipedia is an interesting national trait, but it still does not give an answer to my question. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 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 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 A ? 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) (contribs) 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 A ? 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. Wikipedia 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 TalkContribs 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 Wikipedia 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 A ? 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/wiki/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 Deny recognition. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 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/wiki/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 Wikipedia and Bulgaria article and now the article is treating with different than the established usual practice in Wikipedia. --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:

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 A ? 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:


 * (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 A ? 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 A ? 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.

(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 A ? 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/wiki/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 A ? 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, 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 A ? 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 A ? 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia and Bulgaria article and now the article is treating with different than the established usual practice in Wikipedia.


 * 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:










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


 * 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


 * ...but you somewhat ignored my sources that Bulgarian self-consciousness and state were actually destroyed in the 14 century. How convenient. Keep throwing. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 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 A ? 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  Get involved in DR! 13:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, at least a certain degree of hearing will be guaranteed there. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 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 A ? 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 A ? 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/wiki/Archbishop_of_Ohrid and then the Bulgarian Exarchate in XIX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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/wiki/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 A ? 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  Get involved in DR! 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))


 * Closing, due to the pending RFM. Steven Zhang  Help resolve disputes! 02:09, 31 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 Users involved 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 Wikipedia 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

5. There were three key points: 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.
 * 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'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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia's core values, and it often marks the difference between a collaborative and a disruptive editor.  Belch fire - 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 (talk) 11:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Focus on the Family#Recreational drugs discussion
I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia 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). drugs is a category of drugs, while that drug (or substance) abuse means misusing drugs. Ebe 123  → 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. <font color="#078330">Steven <font color="#2875b0">Zhang  <font color="#d67f0f">Get involved in DR! 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, <font face="Verdana"><font color="#078330">Steven <font color="#2875b0">Zhang  <font color="#d67f0f">Get involved in DR! 13:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an inconsistency between sites, and anyway, I have stated no preference between the two terms.  Ebe  123  → 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. Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#078330">Steven  <font color="#2875b0">Zhang  <font color="#d67f0f">Get involved in DR! 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.   Ebe  123  → 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?  Ebe  123  → 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.  Ebe  123  → 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.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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.  Ebe  123  → 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:
 * "recreational drug use"
 * "excessive drug use"
 * "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.   Ebe  123  → 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).  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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".   Ebe  123  → 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.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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. Ebe 123  → 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. Ebe 123  → 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.

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. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 01:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) recreational drug use
 * 2) drug abuse
 * 3) substance abuse
 * 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).   Ebe  123  → 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. Wikipedia is never a source for Wikipedia 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.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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)
 * Not everything can be your way. I think you could choose 1 of the above in the straw poll.   Ebe  123  → report 20:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, so we had a straw poll, wherein there are 2 in favor of "substance abuse", 1 in favor of "recreational drug use", and a DRN volunteer in favor of a novel term not present in any sources. Lionelt has not participated in the discussion or the straw poll, but offered support for either "drub abuse" or "substance abuse", and unambiguous opposition to "recreational drug use".  Another editor not involved here has just edited the article to read "drug abuse".


 * The consensus seems to be against "recreational drug use," and in favor of either "drug abuse" or "substance abuse". I read the proportions to be approximately 4 to 1.


 * The article status quo is now reasonably consistent with this consensus, unless somebody wants to change it to "substance abuse," but personally I am comfortable with the current lead and see no reason to disturb the wording at this time. I think this DRN should marked as "Resolved per consensus" and closed.   <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  21:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree but with 1 DRN volunteer who wants substance abuse. This will be closed.  We should change it to substance abuse.   Ebe  123  → report 21:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Disruption in Serer religion


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?

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  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
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' 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) (contribs) 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) (contribs) 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) (contribs) 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) (contribs) 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) (contribs) 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) (contribs) 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) (contribs) 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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[s] 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[s] (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[s] who added them can remove them or justify their inclusion if they still take issue. Tamsier (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your recent edits. In fact you removed the tag you also removed the material I'd tagged when I removed the contentious source (tagging it rather than just removing it), so all's well. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello everyone, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. It looks like there's been a lot of discussion above, and the dispute may now be resolved? Is that a fair assessment of the situation, or is our assistance still needed? <font face="Verdana"><font color="#078330">Steven <font color="#2875b0">Zhang  <font color="#d67f0f">Help resolve disputes! 21:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Steven Zhang, for me it is resolved. If other's agree and have no objection in removing the two tags in Serer religion and the tag in Saafi people (an article affected by this discussion), then those can be removed. I would prefer someone else to remove them. If however they still take issue and believe the tags should be left, perhaps it would help to know what the problem is now. Thanks. Tamsier (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Steven, the initial issue - the POV tag - is, I believe, resolved. The issue with Raampa is either an issue for an expert or for WP:RSN, in my opinion. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The tag added to Saafi people has been removed by the inserter, I've striked off that sentence above. The remaining issue is Serer religion - the one line sentence has been deleted as noted above.Tamsier (talk) 17:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've closed this discussion.  Ebe  123  → report 21:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Resource-based economy


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?




 * 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  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


 * How do you think we can help?

Providing opinions.

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

Resource-based economy discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

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.   Ebe  123  → 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)


 * Please Earl King Jr., do not attack him. We are here to solve content disputes. WQA is for ettiquette matters, but refering to anyone being a 'dick' about it is not helping. WP:CIVIL. Do not antagonize this further, shake hands, make amends, whatever to prevent this from getting worse. OpenFuture, I'd just ignore future prods, every response risks another as getting the 'last word' somehow matters. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we can close this with ChrisGualtieri comments.  Ebe  123  → report 21:04, 1 August 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 Users involved 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.

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. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK 20:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening comments by ViriiK
[Comments about other users deleted by dispute resolution volunteer Guy Macon]  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)

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 (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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.  Ebe  123  → 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 Wikipedia 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.  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.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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:
 * I restored the well-cited statement that Romneycare is a lot like Obamacare, for NPOV.
 * 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.
 * 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 Wikipedia 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) <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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. <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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 (talk) 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?  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#078330">Steven <font color="#2875b0">Zhang  <font color="#d67f0f">Get involved in DR! 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.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- 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)
 * It clearly states in edit summaries, "rearrange section for coherence, rm multiple redundancies, rm multiple irrelevancies, retain evolution of positions over time", " rm irrelevance, creationism not an issue in any campaign Romney has contested". His own diff clearly states his intention to clean up and fix it. DR is not about etiquette, but about article content and we have made point that his intentions were good faith. Let's get back on topic. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a suggestion for Still-24-45-42-125. Provide a list of diffs including every one of those repeated requests. After each diff, provide a diff of every direct reply, no matter who wrote it and no matter whether you accept the answer or not. If indeed you have not received adequate answers, that will be obvious from reading the diffs. If you have received adequate answers but refuse to accept them, that will be obvious from reading the diffs as well. It is always best to work from actual evidence. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, see below. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * At this point (and carefully reading Still's posts) - add me to the "oppose Still's opinion on content" column - making it a clear 4 to 1.  I hope this helps. Collect (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that we have a party who has announced he isn't going to accept the result of this DRN process if he doesn't get his way, perhaps we should close it now, since it seems to be a waste of everybody's time. Indeed, it probably has been a waste of everybody's time to continue so far beyond the point where the consensus view became clear.  Of course, if Guy wants to continue reasoning with Still-24, that is between the two of them.  But for myself, I will merely record the (now) 5 to 1 consensus and move on to more fruitful endeavors.  Thank you all for participating, and thank you Guy for your saintly patience.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  18:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to warn you that it is uncivil to attribute positions to me that are not my own. I'm looking forward to hearing your concrete explanations so that we can begin the dispute resolution process. A show of hands is not a resolution, it's a vote, and this isn't an election. As I said below, so far, all I know about your view is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm sure you have reasons; all you have to do is share them. Until you do, this dispute cannot be resolved. It can be closed, but that would only lead to escalation. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just having noticed there is a DRN discussion, I'll just throw in that there is a lot of dated, irrelevant, WP:Undue quote size, etc. material in this article that needs cutting. I can't speak for his other edits., but in the one discussion I was involved about Belchfire's edits (Afghanistan issue) I actually ended up cutting more than he had, because material did not comply with sources, wasn't sourced, or was an absurdly long quote from 2008, when there was no material from 2012, which I added. But in general I hope that all editors - as "wikipedia first" editors - will try to do the same thing in each section and not be committed to keeping dated and WP:Undue material. CarolMooreDC 22:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, I kept most of Belchfire's changes. I objected to these three, but I have been unable to get him to explain his specific reasons for the cuts. Without seeing his arguments for removal, it appears that he's got nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It may well be that he has good reasons, but we'll never know unless he shares them. Please, is it really unreasonable to demand a straight answer? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon suggested that I provide "a list of diffs including every one of those repeated requests. After each diff, provide a diff of every direct reply, no matter who wrote it and no matter whether you accept the answer or not".
 * Keep in mind that this is a best effort, not one guaranteed to be perfect, so if you think I missed something, or mismatched a question and answer, please let me know and I will correct this timeline.
 * QA
 * A
 * QA
 * QA
 * QA
 * A
 * QA
 * QA
 * QA
 * QA
 * A*
 * QA**
 * Q
 * Q
 * Q
 * Anyhow, there you go. The pattern I found is that attempts to get direct answers were met with comments about how many people support Belch. Belch eventually admits that he has no intention of answering*, pretending that what he posted on the talk page is an answer. Later, Chris tries to answer for Belch**, but succeeds only in pasting edit comments into an incoherent mess. At the end, Belchfire states that he's no longer willing to participate and calls it a big waste of time. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like you asked one question, got two answers, and then filed a case at DRN. All of your diffs after the third are from the DRN case itself. You can't blame anyone for not answering your questions here, because I have been trying to keep a close reign on the discussion, telling everyone again and again to focus on the article content, not user conduct. Whether someone explains his edits when asked is a user conduct issue. Also, I have been closely monitoring the DRN discussion and correcting those who have, in good-faith, strayed into unhelpful territory, and I have seen any real misbehavior by you or anyone else here. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, you are factually mistaken. I asked a question and got one "answer": ViriiK insisting that Belchfire's edit comments sufficed and then playing burden tennis. I waited, didn't see a response from Belchfire, and then filed the DRN. After I filed it, Belchfire answered.
 * The problem was his "answer" amounted to WP:IDONTLIKE. At no point did he explain why he deleted any of the three pieces I restored. I broke the question down into three, one per piece, and asked it again. I have not received an answer. If you believe I have, please show me the diff. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 08:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Filing at WP:DRN within 2 hours of complaining about the problem does not help. Belchfire had not even had a chance to properly respond to the comments by the time you filed for WP:DRN. Blechfire's post came three minutes after you filed and it probably took far more then three minutes to write. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's say I waited 12 hours instead. What would have changed? Belchfire never did properly respond, no matter how much time we gave him. He's being evasive and that is why this belongs in DRN. And he's still evading the question. The way I see it, if all he has is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I get to ignore it. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 17:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are now faced with a strong WP:CONSENSUS on your edits. I suggest that your "I get to ignore it" is fraught with perils for you continuing as a Wikipedia editor.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am once again requesting a direct answer to my perfectly reasonable question about why Belchfire chose to delete these three pieces. Unexplained deletions, regardless of consensus voting, are a violation of Wikipedia policy. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The deletions were explained, just that you will not accept them. Deletions can be explained as deleted by consensus, and just having consensus to delete some content needs a reason. So there is a reason of which you left out.   Ebe  123  → report 21:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, I'll explain briefly why I disagree. Consider this paraphrase of a real example of an argument I recently offered:
 * "I removed the defense of Romney's Olympic gaff because it was from lone contrarian in a sea of criticism, so it would be WP:UNDUE to give it equal weight, and would likely violate WP:FRINGE."
 * Now, this may be a good argument or a bad one, but at least it's on the table. Someone could point out that we have additional sources to show that this contrarian's views are considered important, or that there are other contrarians as well. The point is that there's something to discuss, an explicit basis that can be questioned or endorsed. Contrast this with:
 * My fellow conservatives all agree with me that the article shouldn't mention Romney's position on evolution. If you don't like it, we'll edit war against you and win.
 * This is essentially what we have from Belchfire. Why shouldn't we mention his position on evolution? He won't say, so there is literally nothing for me to respond to. I could point out that teaching "intelligent design" is highly controversial and therefore relevant, and even back it up with reliable sources, but I'd be arguing against a ghost. All he'd have to do is repeat that he doesn't like it and neither do his fellow conservatives. That's not an explanation so that's not a binding consensus. It's tag-team edit-warring and article WP:OWNership.
 * My stated reason for invoking dispute resolution was to get a straight answer out of Belchfire. If you're not interested in helping, then close this now as unresolved, and I'll take this to a forum that is interested in enforcing Wikipedia policies. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "...a lone contrarian in a sea of criticism..."


 * That was poetic, Still. Now, in the faint hopes that it will resolve one of your remaining complaints, allow me to point out that the Evolution matter was, in fact, explained.  My edit summary for that diff reads:  "(→‎Evolution:  rm irrelevance, creationism not an issue in any campaign Romney has contested)".   This was also pointed out to you by ChrisGualtieri, right here in this conversation.   And yet, instead of simply acknowledging that you do not accept that explanation, you steadfastly insist it was never offered.  How come?
 * OK, I know I said that I was all done here, and I'm going to resume that stance now, as best I can, notwithstanding a further opportunity to so easily chip away at Still's position. Once again, I remind all that consensus was established here quite some time ago, and other editors not involved in this DRN have resumed the work that I was doing on the article before it was interrupted.  Carry on.  <tt> Belch fire </tt>- TALK  22:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a scene in The Simpsons in which Lionel Hutz, asked whether he has any evidence, says "We've plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence." In the same way, you just offered me a kind of explanation, which is to say, a blatantly false explanation.

We both know that views on evolution have been relevant in the Republican primaries, as candidates are expected by the religious right to be strongly opposed while Romney's view is (usually) too far to the left to make them happy. 

Got plenty more reliable sources where that came from, but you've cloaked like a Romulan, so I expect that you won't even try to rebut my argument. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, we now have a reason to close this discussion, and unless someone gives me a compelling reason not to, I will close it 24 hours from now.

The reason to close comes from user Still-24-45-42-125: "My stated reason for invoking dispute resolution was to get a straight answer out of Belchfire. If you're not interested in helping, then close this now as unresolved, and I'll take this to a forum that is interested in enforcing Wikipedia policies."

WP:DRN is not the right place to "get a straight answer" out of someone. Nor do we "enforce Wikipedia policies". WP:DRN is for resolving content disputes. Therefore I am planning on closing this case as being fundamentally incomparable with the purpose and goals of WP:DRN. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For Still-24-45-42-125, I suggest that you get a mentor (WP:MENTOR) to improve your knowledge of policies and of the wiki in general.  Ebe  123  → report 19:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Georgia_State_University#Primary_logo
Have you discussed this on a talk page?

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

Location of dispute Users involved Dispute overview

Certain editors insist upon uploading a copyrighted image, that does not meet the fair use criteria. At issue, in my opinion is whether the cited argument that ProjectWiki:Universities "policy" can over-rule WP-POLICY. While WP considers logo's fair-use, seals and other images are not logo's and I believe that they should meet all 10 requirements of fair-use.

Thank you for taking the time to help resolve this dispute, and I apologize for the time it is taking away from your other contributions to Wikipedia. In response to your comment, and I apologize if it is a repeat from the previous Section, I would like to re-state the reasoning of my BOLD edit, in order of precedence: 1.) ...respect copyright laws... 2.) ...editors may not violate copyrights anywhere on Wikipedia... 3.) Nothing, even a Project Wiki uniguide trumps POLICY. ...participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope... I ask all other editors to speak to this argument that I am making. There is a free use image to be used to represent GSU, it is their logo, and it is free-use. Why should a WikiProject "policy/habit" be allowed to violate these three items?

Have you tried to resolve this previously?

I have tried to give an example. If Wikiprojects:University decides to include a theme song through consensus, that does not make it right. Common sense tells us that a free-use midi file, versus a copyrighted MP3 file is the way to maintain our Five Pillars. Why ask for trouble, when simply following our own policy in regards to copyright law keeps us safe?

How do you think we can help?

Perhaps, you could put forth your own understanding of policy, and give us your opinion in regards to this matter. Does the image meet all 10 requirements. To me, it is obvious it doesn't meet at least three of them, but I am open to anything that can resolve this dispute. I would rather be spending my time editing.

Talk:Georgia_State_University#Primary_logo 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.
 * From what I can tell, talkpage consensus goes against this user's position on what to do with the infobox image. I honestly don't see any real dispute here.--GrapedApe (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but since it is a policy matter it should still be looked into. Though I think it meets fair use guidelines, which might be why the WP group has a standard routed in policy, rather then a standard in contrast to policy. The core of the issue is whether or not the logo permissions are interpreted as fair use. For a formality, the discussion should be summarised here for easy sourcing and archival later. So a rehashing of the RFC is required. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:09, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Fomeister, thank you for the notification of this discussion. As near as I can tell, this is a case of a new editor not understanding fair use and US copyright law. Why it is acceptable to use a university's seal in an article about the university without their permission has been explained to this person by at least half a dozen different people, but he continues to remove the file from the article and is now switching forums since the he did not agree with the consensus that emerged after they started a RfC. I am not sure how else this can be explained to them so they can stop beating this dead horse, but maybe someone on here can figure out a way to explain it to them that will get through. VQuakr (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * From my POV, one editor believes that that the Georgia State University Visual/Identity Guide and the University's VP University Relations should have control over Wikipedia content, superseding established US fair use law; nearly all other editors at Talk:Georgia State University disagree.--GrapedApe (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Re ChrisGualtieri, below is my summary of the discussion at Talk:Georgia State University related to the logo and subsequent RfC. Comments are welcome if I missed or mischaracterized any portions.
 * Initial concerns were brought forth by User:MLSGSU that the use of the seal in the article violated Georgia State University policy that the seal only be used for graduation and similar ceremonial regalia. User:ElKevbo replied that Wikipedia need not follow GSU policy. MLSGSU replied that the logo violated copyright, ElKevbo replied that use in an article about the university was permissible under copyright law as fair use. User:Fomeister disagreed with the statement that use of the seal qualified as fair use. After continued discussion, ElKevbo suggested that Fomeister seek additional input via the RfC process. User:VQuakr, User:Mabeenot, User:GrapedApe, and User:Danielklotz posted comments to the RfC in agreement that use of the seal qualified as fair use. User:Esrever agreed that the image qualified as fair use, but stated that using a free logo instead of (as opposed to in combination with) the seal was an alternative more in the spirit of WP:NFCC. VQuakr (talk) 03:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Libyan_Civil_War, Talk:Libyan_civil_war


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

A editor is reverting back to another edit which was made by a user as vandalism, forgetting the point that this edit has been made on the same page for a long time, and now this person is frequently removing that sourced content as per his own personal likeness,, , , he is even removing the talks which backup that point in talk page, , and then asks to secure this page, but removes the response which is made on the request page. So i thought of getting this conflict here for solution.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * 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, they are being informed.


 * To inform the other users you may place the text  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?

I had discussed them before on talk pages, each of them, the editors seemed to be agreeing, but there was never a fair response from this editor as well as one more, after sometimes when these edits remained, i saw that they are being reverted back for no reason.


 * How do you think we can help?

I think the edits which were being reverted by this user should remain, because they are well sourced and made much before the user who he is pointing as banned user in those pages, also the talk pages should be recovered, because there's no permission from those users who's talks have been removed, and they doesn't seem to be vandalism or spam in any kind.

122.169.17.113 (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Libyan_Civil_War, Talk:Libyan_civil_war discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.'' Not participating in this circus. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that this dispute is solved right here, as the editor is not interested in talking about any of the conflict which occurred, hoping to see all the requested changes back. 122.169.17.113 (talk) 13:21, 31 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)
 * Somedifferentstuff talk page (content was moved to article talk page, but originally happened here)

Users involved 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
There is a content dispute, as noted above, but the issue is larger than that. If you look at the "perpertrator" section of the article you'll see that it contains loads of information regarding Hezbollah. The official who is in charge of the investigation, Bulgarian Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov, said there was no proof that Hezbollah was behind the attack. My view is that since he is in charge of the investigation, his view regarding Hezbollah should be heavily weighted. Right now the POV of the section is distorted. Have a look at this material Activism1234 added. - see the bottom section which starts "According to a media report, Bulgarian authorities have determined that a Hezbollah terror cell was responsible for the attack." Now when you look at the source, it states that they got this information from a television newscast in Israel. This goes against information from Tsvetanov, as well as the view from the White House, which has not made a statement about responsibility. Yet for some reason, Activism thinks this material should remain in the article. And please have a look at the editorial content he added to the aftermath section. At the end of the day, the article needs to be neutralized, and I think it's best for an uninvolved editor to do so. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 12:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:2012 Burgas bus bombing 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.

Hi, so I'm Ebe123, an DRN volunteer. I would like to wait for the opening comments of all the other parties before opening for discussion. Ebe 123  → report 21:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me get this straight. The article right now says:
 * The Bulgarian Interior Minister denied media reports that it was a local Hezbollah cell, saying that the possibility was not discussed, and they were focusing only on "realistic options." He added that the bomber was a foreign national and not Bulgarian, and that investigators were following several leads, including that there was an accomplice.[28] The interior minister stated there wasn't yet proof he was sent from Hezbollah, and dispelled other media reports, saying that the DNA results would confirm the perpetrator's identity.[29][30]

Is there a problem with that passage that requires dispute resolution? I don't see it--I see an article with way too much news items in there, and I personally don't care what a certain official says on such-and-such day, but while there is an overlap between the two statements I don't see why we should make a fuzz over it. It's easy to economize the passage, of course:
 * The Bulgarian Interior Minister denied media reports that it was a local Hezbollah cell, saying that the possibility was not discussed, and they were focusing only on "realistic options." He added [who cares? second part is a cliche] adding that the bomber was a foreign national and not Bulgarian, [completely redundant] and that investigators were following several leads, including that there was may have had an accomplice.[28] The interior minister He stated there wasn't yet proof the perpetrator was sent from Hezbollah, and dispelled other media reports, saying that the DNA results would confirm the perpetrator's identity .[29][30]

How does that strike you? Somedifferentstuff, whatever else they believe, will have to believe in editorial economy. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm more than fine with your suggestion and what you striked out, and will be more than happy to agree to that edit. However, the dispute resolution was over whether the passage "On July 21, it was reported that Bulgarian Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov, the official who is in charge of the investigation, "denied rumors in the international media about the bomber's identity and said there was no proof that Hezbollah was behind the attack."[37]" is needed, since nearly the exact same thing is written just a few lines above [what you copied and edited here]. It's more detailed on the talk page, in the last section, under the words "Moved from Somedifferentstuff's talk page."  Thanks. But I do like your suggestion about the first part. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  22:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you folks just post a bunch of material after reading

"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."

and

"Hi, so I'm Ebe123, an DRN volunteer. I would like to wait for the opening comments of all the other parties before opening for discussion."?

I am going to defer to Ebe123 on this -- maybe he doesn't mind -- but to me it looks a lot like you just ignored his clear instructions. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I noticed that and you're 100% correct, but since Drmies is an administrator and he commented, I felt it was all right just to clear up what the topic was about. --<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  23:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not mind, although I do not like it. Still, lets wait for the other party.   Ebe  123  → report 00:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Does no good to have a one-sided discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is now open, and I would like Activism1234 to re-post what he removed as it was not open yet. Ebe 123  → report 19:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

Somedifferentstuff has issued his opening comments. Unfortunately, he hasn't answered anything of what I wrote. At all. I'd add that personal opinions don't count for "who weighs more." One person may think that the domestic country's intelligence weighs more, another may think a foreign country's intelligence which is considered one of the best weighs more, but at the end of the day, there's no reason not to just include both of them, and complaining that this is mentioned is silly. Tsvetanov said one thing, and that's great. And someone just as notable or important said another thing, and that's great. The comment about the White House not saying it is the same thing - what difference should that make? And besides, White House officials and the Pentagon did say there were markings of Hezbollah, but reporting that as what they said doesn't violate POV. Perhaps we should consider what Vladimiar Popov, a political scientist in Bulgaria, told http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/world/europe/after-bombing-bulgarias-ties-with-israel-at-risk.html?_r=1&ref=israelthe New York Times (a reliable media outlet), for some context or explanation as well here. “For small Bulgaria to come out and openly name Hezbollah in such a way is as good as entering a minefield,” said Vladimir Shopov, a political scientist at the New Bulgarian University in Sofia. “There would have to be absolute certainty almost. You’d have to be really, really confident that your convincing evidence could stand up before all the other members of the E.U.” Now, surely that should give more reasonable doubt as to why we shouldn't fall head over knees in regards to what one official said, no matter whether they're the domestic country, and simply report what they said, but not to disregard what others have said as well, including those officials published in internationally read media outlets like The New York Times. I myself have added passages about officials who said this isn't true, or who said not to jump to conclusions. I have nothing against it - this is factual information, and that's what Wikipedia is for. I will happily add such information if I know about it and have a reliable reference to it. [Now, on the side, I'd like to remind Somedifferentstuff that he added the POV tag specifically in regards to a passage at the end of the article. He wrote in the summary box that he added the tag because this was an opinion piece. I held a lengthy discussion with him on his talk page already about it. This is what the passage said. The Washington Post's editorial page on July 20 contained an editorial headline "Holding Iran accountable for terrorist attacks," in which The Washington Post said that Iran must suffer for its acts of global terrorism, and "The Security Council should review the abundant evidence of involvement by the Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah in this year’s attacks and punish both those groups as well as the Iranian government with sanctions." The newspaper wrote "Using the territory of countries across the world, working sometimes through proxies like Lebanon’s Hezbollah and sometimes with its own forces, Tehran has been intentionally targeting not just diplomats of enemies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia but also civilians."] Does it violate POV? As far as I can tell, it properly attributes an editorial read by thousands and thousands of people to the appropriate media outlet, just like it is written over 10 times in, for example, Public image of Barrack Obama. But now he's trying to distract from that towards another issue, that he feels it's unfair for certain comments by top officials to be mentioned alongside those of other officials, and his personal opinion of who counts more should be taken by us?? I think we need to make a great effort towards staying on topic - what I filed this dispute resolution about. Somedifferentstuff, so far you haven't answered anything that I've posed at you. Everything you've said has already been discussed before, and I'm happy to discuss it again, but right now I filed a dispute resolution for one specific reason, and you aren't answering it. Now I'm fine with that, but then the redundant passage should be removed.

Thanks.--<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  13:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

To make it easier for review, I will copy and paste the two passages I am referring to here. Passage 1, July 20 reference: "The Bulgarian Interior Minister denied media reports that it was a local Hezbollah cell, saying that the possibility was not discussed, and they were focusing only on 'realistic options.' He added that the bomber was a foreign national and not Bulgarian, and that investigators were following several leads, including that there was an accomplice." Passage 2, July 21 (adding to the issue, the reference is to an article from July 22, when in reality it should be the article on July 21 written by the same article which reports what the interior minister said): On July 21, it was reported that Bulgarian Interior Minister Tsvetan Tsvetanov, the official who is in charge of the investigation, "denied rumors in the international media about the bomber's identity and said there was no proof that Hezbollah was behind the attack." What I've been saying summary - the article written on July 21 was likely just repeating what was said on July 20. This can be for a variety of reasons - either the timezone published it on July 21 rather than July 20, or it wasn't published in time to meet the stamp of July 20, or the author was repeating what was said on July 20 for context. The two articles are very similar in regards to the statement, and essentially conclude the same thing. There isn't proof it was repeated again on July 21, and also, the passages are so similar that there isn't really a point in repeating it twice.

Hope it helps. I'm not in any rush here, I understand some editors may not be as heavy on Wikipedia, and while I usually have a heavy presence, I may find myself largely absent from Friday-Saturday, but I would appreciate discussion here when possible.

Thanks.

--<small style="border: 1px dashed;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> Activism  1234  22:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Joseph de Maistre


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

User ERIDU-DREAMING has for some time been making edits to this page which I personally feel tend to make it less, rather than more informative. His response to my comments and interventions have been less than polite. Most recently, he has insisted in removing properly-cited and longstanding material (originally added by editors other than me), about Maistre's influence on early sociologists and on Utopian socialists. When I reverted this and asked him to first discuss his concerns in the talk page, he simply ignored me and removed the material again. I then started a thread in the talk page and asked him to air his concerns, but his response was simply to suggest that I should improve my reading skills and remove the material again. I don't want to start an edit war. I think it would be very useful if other editors were to step in.

Users involved
 * Who is involved in the dispute?




 * 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  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?

I have asked ERIDU-DREAMING to discuss his concerns in the talk page first, and I have started a thread on the subject in the article's talk page.


 * How do you think we can help?

At this stage, I think that input from other editors would be quite useful.

Eb.hoop (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Joseph de Maistre discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

Hi, I am a dispute resolution volunteer. I would like to await an opening statement by ERIDU-DREAMING before we open the discussion. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What disingenuous nonsense from start to finish. I made some minor changes (mainly to the flow of the article) and every single one of which was always blanket reverted by Eb.hoop. When I pointed out to him that reverting every single minor change in one go suggests ownership issues he stopped (temporarily), but evidently he is strongly motivated to continue. He is obsessed with a minor and not very well argued point about a possible link between De Maistre and some later French sociologists. I have retained this material since Eb.hoop for some reason feels it is of great importance. Unfortunately (for reasons only known to himself) he keeps claiming that the material has been removed. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

All right, I'm opening the discussion. Before I say anything, I want to remind both of you that this venue is for content disputes only. While content disputes and conduct disputes often go hand-in-hand, I'd like to keep any user conduct issues out of this forum as much as possible. To that end, I or another DRN volunteer may remove any comments that focus exclusively on the behavior of an editor.

Looking over the revision history of the page, it does appear that most of User:ERIDU-DREAMING's edits were minor. It is this series that seems to be of any major substance. Looking at this, it seems that there are currently only cosmetic changes between the article before ERIDU-DREAMING began editing it and now; the one exception is the passage that was moved from the "Political and moral philosophy" section to the "Repute and influence" section. All things considered, this seems to be the passage under dispute. So I have the following questions to start things off:


 * Eb.hoop, do you take issue with any of ERIDU-DREAMING's edits outside of that one larger passage? If yes, which, and why?
 * ERIDU-DREAMING, are you contesting that the sources for that passage do not support the link? If yes, in what way? If no, what do you see as problematic in that passage?

I hope we can resolve this amicably. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear ERIDU-DREAMING: You altogether removed the sentence "This analysis of the legitimacy of political authority foreshadows some of the concerns of early sociologists such as Saint-Simon and Comte," with a reference to LeBrun.  (I just noticed that the URL for that reference is dead, but that could be easily fixed).  You have also consistently edited the article to play down or remove references to Maistre's arguments about the need for hierarchical authority, as opposed to the mere invocation of a "divine right of kings."  After I objected, you did eventually restore the sentence about Maistre's influence on Utopian socialists, with a reference to a book by Armenteros, though you put it in a different place in the article, where it no longer connects directly to his arguments about the legitimacy of authority.

Again, completely untrue. I did several minor edits (including moving a couple of sentences to a new place) and THEN you reverted. You say I have consistently edited the article to play down or remove references to Maistre's arguments about the need for hierarchical authority, as opposed to the mere invocation of a "divine right of kings." Again this is untrue. You seem to be having an argument with somebody else. The only thing I can extract from your statement which bears any resemblance to the facts is the removal of one sentence - of which you seem to be very fond. If you are so fond of it put it back into the article! I personally do not think it is a very helpful sentence. It is so vague it is useless. But spare us the garbage that you are only objecting to every minor change because I am seeking to change the meaning of the article. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 17:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear ERIDU-DREAMING: When I first reverted, you had simply removed the sentences, see . After I had objected more than once, you restored one, then the other, but to a different part of the article, all the while refusing to engage in substantive discussion of the issue.  It is not my place to judge what your intentions are, and Wikipedia instructs us to assume good faith (which would be easier for me to do if you did not so readily engage in vituperation and questioning of my own motives).  I do maintain that, as far as I can tell, your edits have, not only in this case but also in previous occasions, been oriented towards minimizing or eliminating discussion of Maistre's arguments about the legitimacy of political authority.  I could, of course, be mistaken either in my appreciation of your edits or in my understanding of Maistre's work.  But your attitude has made it difficult and unpleasant to try to sort out these issues calmly and rationally.  - Eb.hoop (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I, like Jorgath, am a regular volunteer here at DRN. This is looking more and more like a conduct dispute, rather than a content dispute. This noticeboard is only for content disputes. Please stop discussing one another and one another's alleged COI, motivations, attitudes, and the like. If there are any particular edits which you would like to hash out, please identify them and a volunteer will probably be willing to discuss them with you, but if you wish to complain about or discuss one another's conduct please limit that discussion to one another's user talk pages or to WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, or some other forum which deals with conduct. Discuss only edits here, not editors. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I will make an attempt to improve the discussion of Maistre's analysis of the legitimacy of political authority in a way that is well supported by mainstream secondary sources. If this goes well and does not lead to an edit war, I will be happy to regard the issue as settled.  - Eb.hoop (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * While that's good, neither of you has yet even started to answer my questions. I'm understanding that you're not interacting well with one another, so I propose that you interact with me (and TransporterMan, and any other DRN volunteer) and let us act as go-betweens for the matter of this article. I will reiterate: Eb.hoop, do you have any problem with the changes outside the part I linked to above? ERIADU-DREAMING, in that part, are you challenging the sources or the wording? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear Jorgath: I did try to answer your questions, but perhaps my response was not clear. I objected to ERIDU-DREAMING cutting out references to Maistre's actual arguments concerning authority and its legitimacy.  He began by removing two sentences outright, with their corresponding references, plus some words earlier in the same paragraph.  I came to this bulletin board because I was finding it impossible to have a productive debate with him in the article's talk page.  He did eventually add the two sentences back, but at a different place in the article, where they related to Maistre's influence on later thinkers, rather than to the substance of his political philosophy.  You can see for yourself what my concerns about the content of the article are, from my most recent edits to it.  - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And just to clarify, those were these two sentences? I'm nowiki-ing it to avoid having to put in a reflist.
 *  This analysis of the legitimacy of political authority foreshadows some of the concerns of early sociologists such as Saint-Simon and Comte. According to Armenteros, Maistre's writings influenced Utopian Socialists as well as conservative political thinkers. 
 * Is this the part you were referring to, Eb.hoop? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 21:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. You can see the edit that I first tried to revert here: .  I had already had a disagreement with ERIDU-DREAMING some months ago about the same subject.  - Eb.hoop (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that Eb.hoop is trying to re-write the article, so that it brings out more clearly the point he wishes to make. That is the best that can be hoped for in the circumstances. Thanks for your help in trying to resolve the issue. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Do both of you accept this re-write as a potential resolution to the dispute at hand, then? Obviously a re-write may lead to future content disagreements, but if you're willing to work with each other to improve the article by re-writing it, then I'd like to declare this resolved. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the current text. - Eb.hoop (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good. ERIDU-DREAMING, is this acceptable to you? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am told I must get back to the discussion!

I am glad that Ed.hoop is happy with the text which he wrote, but the phrase "based on compelling but non-rational grounds" is unclear. Who or what is compelling, and why is it compelling?

The statement "What was novel in Maistre's writings was not his enthusiastic defense of monarchical and religious authority per se, but rather his arguments concerning the need for an ultimate source of political authority" is simply a point of view. It is not even a well grounded point of view - since it is pretty obvious that arguments about what grounds political authority [including Popes and Kings] are as old as political philosophy.

The phrase "embodied in an individual, and about the social foundations of that authority's legitimacy" is extremely clumsy.

The words which De Maistre addressed to a group of aristocratic French emigrés, "you ought to know how to be royalists. Before, this was an instinct, but today it is a science. You must love the sovereign as you love order, with all the forces of intelligence" is simply De Maistre asserting that defenders of the Kings/Popes should have an adequate political theory, he is not saying (or intending to say) that he is the first to make that claim!

Eb.hoop is obsessed with one point he wants to convey, and it is more dominant than ever in the article in its present form. It is entirely possible that De Maistre did influence Comte and Saint-Simon, but it is not of central importance, and should therefore be in the influences section.

As I say En.hoop reverts every single change I make (the vast majority of which are extremely minor) because he has it in his head that I am pushing something (he is not clear what but he seems to be convinced it is something) yet it is evident that the exact opposite is the case.

I am only interested in it being a reasonably lucid and accurate account of the basic facts about De Maistre.

ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear ERIDU-DREAMING: We could try to have this discussion in the article's talk page. But for that to work it's very important that you engage in discussion of the substantive issues and consider my arguments, and not simply dismiss my concerns out of hand, then cut out material and citations in the article.


 * For what it's worth, let me say here that I think you are wrong about a key issue regarding Maistre. If he had simply been a believer in the divine right of kings and an enemy of democracy, he would be hardly distinguishable from a great many others.  He is interesting to the extent that he was the first (or at least one of the first) to try to present a reasoned response against the rationalist political aims of the Enlightened philosophers.  - Eb.hoop (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

(Redacted) (ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC))
 * Removed a comment only about a user. The comment was also a personal attack.  As a DRN volunteeer,  Ebe  123  → report 19:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you can tell me a nice way of saying that Ed.hoop is not giving an accurate account. If you cannot think of one then why bother asking me (telling me!) to come here. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not remember asking you to participate here, but how about "Ed.hoop is not giving an accurate account. [Many diffs]"  Ebe  123  → report 21:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You left a message on my talk page Ebe123.

OK. It is not accurate to say that the claim which Ed.hoop added to the De Maistre entry has been deleted. As for the text he has now added, it is not without its problems - as I outlined above. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello, I'm a volunteer here at DRN. Eridu-Dreaming, can you please summarise in less than 300 words the problems you see with the text that was added to the article, as well as a solution that you think can be agreeable to everyone here? Remember - we work on compromise on Wikipedia. It's very rarely all-or-nothing. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#078330">Steven <font color="#2875b0">Zhang  <font color="#d67f0f">Help resolve disputes! 22:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Steven Zhang. I have not deleted the point of view being defended by Ed.hoop (your question assumes it is me doing the deleting) rather the opposite; Ed.hoop is reverting every change I make, no matter how minor, and most have been VERY minor. Maybe you ought to direct your question towards him? The most I have done is move the claim he is very keen to defend (about the influence which De Maistre had on various French sociologists) to the who Maistre influenced section. I have made some comments on his recent changes in THIS section (saying that his changes could be improved for the reasons outlined) but you will have noticed the silence from Ed.hoop. Maybe you should ask him to reply to those criticisms? He after all is the one who brought this case here. I have NO objection to him placing an interpretation of De Maistre into the article, just so long as it is put in the right place, identified as such and not given too much prominence. There are a thousand different interpretations of political philosophers, and De Maistre is no exception. Clarity is also desirable. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the policies here are on closing a request, since it's the first time that I've used this noticeboard. I think that there was (perhaps there still is) a substantive disagreement between ERIDU-DREAMING and me about the nature of Maistre's political philosophy. Since, in accordance with basic rules, I've backed up my claims with mainstream secondary sources, I think that remaining disagreements about presentation, or about the weight given to specific references, can be aired in the article's talk page. What I'm worried about is that in the past ERIDU-DREAMING has not been willing to engage in meaningful discussion in the talk page, and the article attracts few other editors who might intervene or mediate in the event of two-party disputes. For my part, I'm willing to see the request here closed and hope that remaining issues can be resolved in the normal ways. More attention to changes to the article from other editors would be very welcome. - Eb.hoop (talk) 20:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again. An inaccurate summary, and a refusal to address any points. Why is Ed.hoop here? Because he objects to even slight changes being made to his text. There is no "substantive" difference between us, because the issue he is focusing on is not a "substantive" issue - notwithstanding the prominence he is giving it in the article. It is an opinion about De Maistre. Nor is it correct to say I am deleting his "substantive issue", the most that could be said is that I am moving it to a different location, and suggesting that his latest version (which gives his "substantive issue" even greater prominence) is making the article even more unbalanced.

As I said way back:

"I think that Eb.hoop is trying to re-write the article, so that it brings out more clearly the point he wishes to make. That is the best that can be hoped for in the circumstances."

He evidently finds criticism hard to cope with (no matter how minor) and therefore asking him to look at his contributions more self-critically is pointless - but then I am not the one wasting your time by bringing it here. I agree with Ed.hoop that the more editors the better - I believe that Wikipedia is a great contribution to human civilization because it allows the possibility of textual evolution. ERIDU-DREAMING (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, at this point I'm starting to think that the (perceived) behavior issues are getting in the way. That said, I don't see why the information Eb.hoop wants to keep in should not be in there. Could it be written differently? Yes. But the basic info seems accurate and well-sourced. I'm therefore going to close this, albeit as unresolved, and ask both of you to take any behavioral issues to the relevant noticeboards. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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


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?

Reviving the dead thread Talk:Four-dimensionalism, 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  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 and edit summaries at Eternalism (philosophy of time) and User talk:Hypnosifl.


 * How do you think we can help?

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

<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  21:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you think DRN can help? If so, how? is the question.  Ebe  123  → report 18:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Eternalism (philosophy of time), Talk:Four-dimensionalism discussion
''Discussion about the issues listed above takes place here. Remember to keep your comments calm, brief, and focused on the issues at hand.''

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.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  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.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  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:

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.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  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. <font face="Verdana"><font color="#078330">Steven <font color="#2875b0">Zhang  <font color="#d67f0f">Get involved in DR! 13:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking a look on it.  Ebe  123  → report 18:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If there were a consensus to support Hyponosifl's attempted rollback of the lede to a point prior to the dispute, I wouldn't object, but his own cites argue against his position and whereas they're arguably too numerous for the lede, removing valid cites seems like the wrong way to go... At any rate, if we could avoid confusing the issue with unrelated edits, that might help the volunteers here hone in on the dispute. Would page protection be in order, while discussion is on hold?—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  23:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've requested page protection as Hypnosifl insists on making extensive edits while this discussion is on hold.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  23:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggested rolling back the lede to the point immediately before the dispute began as a temporary solution until a consensus is formed, since it doesn't seem fair to leave it on either of our modified versions if the other disagrees with the modifications. I don't think my unrelated edits confuse the issue since they have nothing to do with the subject of the dispute (namely, whether any modern philosophers understand there to be a difference in meaning between the terms "eternalism" and "block universe"), and I didn't have a problem with the unrelated edits MachineElf made to the "Determinism and Indeterminism" section while the dispute was already going on (see this 27 July edit by MachineElf), so it seems unfair that he/she wants to preserve the "Determinism and Indeterminism" edit while making a blanket rule that I can't make any further edits to any sections (even if MachineElf has no specific objections to the content of these edits). I am not aware of any wikipedia rule that says that when a dispute is in progress, the people involved are forbidden from making any further changes to the page even if these changes have nothing to do with what they were disputing. Hypnosifl (talk) 00:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried to preserve your additional cites each time, but I see no reason for a flurry of presumably unrelated changes... the direct quote of Popper regarding his discussion with Einstein is related: ‘the view that the world was a four-dimensional Parmenidean block universe in which change was a human illusion, or very nearly so. (He agreed that his had been his view, and while discussing it I called him "Parmenides".)’.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  00:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Edit warring with misleading edit summaries.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  00:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I just commented on the talk page, I don't see how that edit was edit warring, or how it contained a misleading summary.Hypnosifl (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't see how 3 reverts in less than 6 hours based solely on your unilateral "temporary" solution could be construed as edit warring? You don't see how your edit summary is misleading? "no justification for restoring your version of the lede from the pre-dispute version"... I provided justification 1) in both of my edit summaries, 2) on the article talk page, 3) on this page, and 4) on the request for page protection. You may not think it's sufficient justification, but it's misleading to revert a third time claiming "no justification" as if I haven't said a word. Frankly, calling it "my version" is a laugh, as it's merely an attempt to incorporate your cites, and where verifiable, your changes to the article text. Again, I'm really not surprised you want to remove your cites, as they don't support your position. I added the direct quote from Popper (which would actually support your position, unless it's taken tongue-in-cheek), prior to your participation in dispute resolution and unlike your recent changes, it was not added simultaneously with a unilateral change to the lede. Very simply, I asked you not to "make changes while the dispute resolution has been put on hold", and you've repeatedly refused to comply.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  04:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, calling it "my version" is a laugh, as it's merely an attempt to incorporate your cites, and where verifiable, your changes to the article text.

It's "your version" with respect to the one issue that is the source of this entire dispute--namely, the fact that you continually reverted my edits saying that eternalism is "also known as" block time (even though two of the sources I posted used near-identical wording), changing it to "sometimes known as", apparently because of your belief (which you have never provided a single source to confirm) that they can only be equated "sometimes" because block time is also "sometimes" defined to mean something a bit different than eternalism, with the block time definition supposedly involving 20th century conceptions of "spacetime" while the eternalism definition does not (as seen in your 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.) If you could provide a source for this claim, this whole dispute could be easily resolved, as my opinion on this issue could be easily changed with an example of a single professional philosopher specifying that he/she uses the terms to mean different things.

— Hypnosifl — (continues after insertion below.)
 * I'm not the only user to disagree with Hypnosifl's WP:BOLD attempt to remove, contrary to the source he, himself, provided, the preexisting language that eternalism is sometimes called "block universe" or "block time". Again, he WP:TENDENTIOUSLY mischaracterizes a simple issue of WP:V as "apparently because of [my] belief" which, needless to say, I would have "never provided a single source to confirm"... Despite his egregious number of citations, he has not provided a source that says it's "always" called that... nothing that contradicts his original source's assertion that it is "sometimes" called that. No one is saying eternalism is not "also known as" block universe or block time, "sometimes" at least... His own sources make it clear that the "block" in "block universe"/"block time" refers to Minkowski's 20th century conception of spacetime, (while some playfully flirt with the anachronism of Minkowski spacetime originating in the 5th century BC via Parmenides). Given the dissenting source that he, himself, provided, I'm merely disputing that it's verifiable all philosophers see them as synonymous, tout court.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735   10:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Until the dispute is resolved, though, it seems unfair to say that the version left on the page should be the one that is "yours" with respect to the central issue being disputed here. That's why I suggested the temporary solution of reverting to the earlier version of the lede that neither of us had written while we waited for the dispute to be resolved; the first of the three edits of mine you mentioned above was doing this, I'd hardly call it "edit warring" to revert to a neutral version of the lede, especially since I had proposed this on the talk page a little more than 22 hours earlier. But then after I made some other changes to the rest of the article (unrelated to our dispute, and not changes that you have raised any specific objections to) you reverted all of the changes including the change to a more neutral lede, so my second edit was restoring the neutral lede and explaining what I had done in the edit note, as well as pointing out that the other changes I made were unrelated to our dispute so there seemed no good reason for you to revert them. Again I don't see this as edit warring, because I thought there was a decent chance you had misunderstood the changes I had made, not realizing that my change to the lede and my changes to the rest of the article were completely neutral with regard to the subject of our dispute.

— Hypnosifl — (continues after insertion below.)
 * Please note they're both "mine", ‘with respect to the central issue being disputed here’, because the version Hypnosifl is demanding also says "sometimes". Although there are too many cites for something so trivial, I think it's a shame to remove every one of them, and I don't condone his unilateral "temporary solution". While confusing the issue with simultaneous edits to other parts of the article, and having received no response as to whether his proposal would be "acceptable as a temporary solution", he reverted back to the unsourced edition 3 times in less than 6 hours, and argued about it non-stop thereafter: because it's not edit warring if I might have misunderstood the neutrality of all his edits, for example...—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  10:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Then you reverted the whole thing again, in spite of the fact that you had said on the talk page "I don't have a problem with rolling back the lede to the point just prior to your first edit if there's a consensus for it". Based on that, I figured that when your two edit notes said "please do not make a series of extensive changes to the article while dispute resolution is pending" and "please do *not* make changes while the dispute resolution has been put on hold", the "extensive changes" you talked about referred to the additional new paragraphs I had added to the rest of the article, not the reversion of the lede to a pre-dispute version which you claimed to have no problem with. Since I didn't think those edit notes were referring to the lede, that's why I said you had provided "no justification" for reverting my change to the lede. And that's why I made that third edit where I restored the pre-dispute lede but didn't attempt to restore my additions to the rest of the article until a decision was reached about blocking all further changes to the article (in spite of the fact that my additions were unrelated to the dispute, and you provided no link to any wiki rules saying that editors involved in a dispute should avoid making edits to the rest of the article that don't involve the subject of their dispute, and if such a rule existed you would have been violating it anyway--your comment above that you added the Popper material prior to my posting in the dispute resolution thread myself doesn't really explain how this isn't a double standard, given that you had already started the dispute resolution process yourself at that point). If you want to say that your edit notes requesting I not make any changes were meant to include reverting the lede to the pre-dispute version, hopefully you can at least see how I might be genuinely confused (rather than being intentionally "misleading") given your comment on the talk page about having "no problem" with temporarily reverting the lede in this way.

— Hypnosifl — (continues after insertion below.)
 * He conveniently ignores the part about consensus... but it's correct that I ‘provided no link to any wiki rules saying that editors involved in a dispute should avoid making edits to the rest of the article’ when the volunteers ask them not to even continue the discussion until they get a chance to catch up. Apart from the contorted rationalization via putting different words in my mouth, it's false that ‘if such a rule existed [I] would have been violating it anyway’. I'm merely saying that if the discussion is on hold, it goes without saying that one should hold off on unilateral edits too. Finally, I've never claimed Hypnosifl was ‘being intentionally "misleading"’, just that his edit summaries, excuses, etc. are, in fact, misleading.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  10:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm really not surprised you want to remove your cites, as they don't support your position.

This is the second time you've suggested that I wanted to revert to the pre-dispute lede because I secretly realized the sources supported your position, despite the fact that I have already denied that this is the reason and explained my specific objections to your arguments for saying the sources support your position (objections which you said you won't respond to on the talk page while the dispute resolution process is on hold), seems rather like a rather disrespectful speculation about my personal motives, and perhaps represents an attempt to taunt or bait me. Please keep in mind Civility, in which the following types of behaviors are strongly discouraged: "personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours—when such behavior disrupts the project and leads to unproductive stressors and conflict." And of course, if you think I have been personally disrespectful towards you in some way (as opposed to just disagreeing with you about editing issues), please say something. Hypnosifl (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Although he hadn't made that claim in reference to his "temporary solution", I am willing to stipulate that he still has no idea the sources argue strongly against his WP:OR by providing counter examples. My position is not the opposite of that WP:OR, and it's ridiculous to suggest an WP:RS would directly address WP:OR, particularly WP:OR that's trivially false apart from some qualified sense. At any rate, I've certainly never promised him responses to his objections pending the status of the dispute resolution process and I don't see how assuming intellectual competence ‘seems rather like a rather disrespectful speculation about [his] personal motives and perhaps represents an attempt to taunt or bait’ him... but that was a prelude to specious accusations of incivility and personal attacks. I most certainly do think he's been personally disrespectful, despite repeated requests that he stop mischaracterizing my intentions, stop putting words in my mouth, stop referring to me altogether... to which he replied: ‘I suppose as long as you don't plan to edit the statements in the opening paragraph of Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) saying that eternalism is synonymous with the 4D block universe view, then your opinion on this issue doesn't have any further relevance to editing, so in that case I'm happy to drop it.’—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  10:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am another dispute resolution volunteer. Ebe123 has already volunteered to take a look at this dispute, but can you guys please hold off on further discussion here until they (or another one of us) has done so? If you're only talking with each other, you might as well do it on the article talk page. If you're making the same arguments without convincing each other, then yes, that's part of what DRN is for, but it serves no purpose to keep talking past each other here without anyone else's input, except to glaze over the eyes of the volunteers with TL;DR syndrome. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Writ Keeper
Hey, guys, I'm (yet another) volunteer. With Ebe123's permission, I'll hijack it, if I may. So, let me give the briefest of summaries, just to check my understanding of the situation: at the start, everyone is happy with the wording of the lede, where it says that eternalism is sometimes equated with block time and/or block universe. Hypnosifl adds a reference with some commentary in it that basically contradicts the "sometimes" bit; while the actual text in the lede is still not in dispute, one of the footnotes says, in Wikipedia's voice, that the consensus of philosophers think of eternalism and the other two terms as synonymous. MachineElf objects to this on grounds of verifiability, as only one of the sources supports that it is a generally-held view, and adds quotes from the sources for context. Hypnosifl says that the quotes don't mean what you think they mean, and we're off to the races, with the dispute spilling out into the text of the lede itself and picking up other elements as well, like the whole relativity/Minkowski part. But the fundamental positions, as it were, seem to be that MachineElf says that "eternalism is sometimes considered the same as block universe" and Hypnosifl says that "eternalism is always considered the same as block universe".

So, if I got that right (and please tell me if I don't!), here's my suggestion, for which I'd be interested on hearing your feedback. First, I'd say we revert the wording of the lede itself back to what's used before this fracas started, so that we don't have to worry about the whole relativity/Minkowski diagram bit. That may be an issue that needs to be discussed, but it's a separate issue, so let's deal with the one at hand first. It also has the advantage (IMO) of getting rid of some of the qualifications and limited definitions and so on that got introduced over the debate, which look like they're more confusing than helpful to the casual reader. So, the question becomes this: Hypnosifl, are you solid enough in that position that you want to remove the word "sometimes" from the text of the lede itself? You didn't remove it from the lede when you first started, and that's what confused me at first. If you don't want to remove it, then the issue can probably be fixed just by removing the additional text in the footnote, so that it doesn't contradict the sentence it's supposed to support, and letting the refs stand on their own (probably in separate ref tags, but that's just stylistic). If you do want to remove the word from the lede, then we have a bit more to discuss. What do y'all think? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * For my part, I've no objections to any of that.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  07:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hypnosifl adds a reference with some commentary in it that basically contradicts the "sometimes" bit; while the actual text in the lede is still not in dispute, one of the footnotes says, in Wikipedia's voice, that the consensus of philosophers think of eternalism and the other two terms as synonymous.


 * That's not my understanding of the dispute; at least, I don't recall to Machine Elf objecting to any one of the four sources I added in particular, and I also don't see that any of the sources provides stronger support for the notion that they are synonymous than the others (all four support this notion about equally, AFAIK, though none use the word synonymous--that's why, after Machine Elf complained about my "synonymous" edit, I changed it to "also known as", which is near-identical wording to two of the sources.) If you think one source supports my claim more strongly than the others, can you specify which of the four you're talking about? Here they are again:


 * '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)


 * Incidentally, I since spotted another reference (written by a professional philosopher of science), which I'd like to add to the article once this dispute is resolved:


 * "Many philosophers have taken the view, known as 'the block universe theory' or 'eternalism', that there are no significant ontological differences among present, past, and future." (source)


 * So, the question becomes this: Hypnosifl, are you solid enough in that position that you want to remove the word "sometimes" from the text of the lede itself? You didn't remove it from the lede when you first started, and that's what confused me at first.


 * Yes, unless a source is found where a professional philosopher mentions some distinction in meaning between the terms. Not sure what you mean when you say I didn't remove it from the lede at first, my initial edit did remove it, (edit: sorry, now I see what you mean, I notice now that I added the claim that they are synonymous in the footnote while leaving the main text the same; but this would leave no confusion in the mind of readers who read the footnote, whereas if the main text read "sometimes" while the footnote just offered some sources without commenting on the issue of the equivalence of the terms, I think the issue would be a lot less clear to readers) then after Machine Elf objected to my calling the terms "synonymous" and reverted that, my next edit also removed "sometimes referred to" from the article, which I changed 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. Hypnosifl (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, so now that we've focused the dispute, let's get into it. It seems to me that the sources do support Hypnosifl's position.  I don't think we can really draw any conclusion from the Carroll source on way or another; the transitive connection between the terms are too loose.  Moreover, while he does use the word "sometimes", he uses it in a way that doesn't need to imply a difference between the terms; if position A is sometimes called B, that doesn't have to mean that, the rest of the time, B refers to something else; it could just mean that B is rarely-used.  The other sources that Hypnosifl lists seem to indicate that "block universe" and "eternalism" mean the same thing, in fairly uncontroversial terms.  So, the question is now for MachineElf: what's making you support the word "sometimes" in the main text of the lede? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you expand on how it seems to you that the sources support Hypnosifl's position and what that is? Carroll is a clear counter example, the various meanings attached to "block universe" do not simplistically coincide with those of "eternalism":


























 * —<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  16:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * —<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  16:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I did ask you almost from the start if you could provide any sources other than Carroll for the claim that "block universe" sometimes has a different meaning than "eternalism", but you always refused my request; a lot of time might have been saved if you had done this earlier. I think some of these sources are not clearly using "block universe" to mean anything other than "all times are equally real", but are simply using analogies to make the idea more concrete; for example, "the world is like a film strip: the photographs are already there and are merely being exhibited to us" and Bradley's metaphor of our moving on a boat past houses representing different times, with "the firm fixed row of the past and future stretches in a block behind us, and before us" (i.e. all the members of the row are equally real and fixed). And Jammer's quote about relativity being "interpreted" to imply a "block universe" does not clearly indicate that he thinks the concept of "block universe" itself involves relativistic ideas like a four-dimensional spacetime manifold. William James is a good candidate for a philosopher using "block universe" differently, though--he was criticizing a type of monism in which every particular part of reality is completely determined by its relationships with other parts of reality, which goes beyond the eternalist claim that future events "exist" (to qualify as an eternalist, one does not necessarily have to believe that future facts are completely determined by other events in their past or by metaphysical necessities). It's not clear whether James was saying that this type of monism implies a "block universe" in the more limited sense of future events already being "out there", or whether he was using "block universe" to refer to this sense in which future events are determined. Do you know of any contemporary philosophers who use "block universe" in a way that suggest they mean some type of determinism as well as the idea of past and future events being just as real as present ones? If not, we might consider something like "also known as the block time view by modern philosophers", but with a footnote that historically some philosophers like James used the term differently (and I'll try to find a source that states more clearly if James meant "block universe" to imply determinism). Hypnosifl (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently, no time would have been saved... WP:OR there's nothing wrong with the current text: "sometimes called". See WP:LEDE.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  18:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing about my original edit constituted "original research", since the sources I gave did support the claim that eternalism is "also known" as the block universe view. If someone provides reliable sources for a claim, it's not their responsibility to make sure that the claim is universally agreed upon by all professionals in the field; other editors can provide sources that show that other professionals disagree, as I asked you to do all along. Your new research above did provide a strong indication that some sources do define "block universe" differently, and although I wasn't convinced they were definitive, when I did a little more looking for quotes by/about philosophers who disputed the monists like James and Whitehead I did find a source (see below) that very clearly uses "block universe" in a way that includes determinism. If you had done similar research earlier in our debate, I imagine the same thing would have happened, so quite a lot of time and energy would have been saved. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't refer to your original edit.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I thought when you you put WP:OR next to "there's nothing wrong with the current text", you meant that my proposed modifications to the current text (i.e., "also known as") were original research. If that's not it, what does the accusation of WP:OR refer to? Hypnosifl (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * “‘Non-presentism’ is an umbrella term that covers several different, more specific versions of the view. One version of Non-presentism is Eternalism, which says that objects from both the past and the future exist just as much as present objects. According to Eternalism, non-present objects like Socrates and future Martian outposts exist right now, even though they are not currently present. We may not be able to see them at the moment, on this view, and they may not be in the same space-time vicinity that we find ourselves in right now, but they should nevertheless be on the list of all existing things.” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/time/ see also http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-bebecome/
 * —<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  18:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What's the relevance of this one? It doesn't use the term "block universe", and its definition of "eternalism" is the same as the one in my edits of the lede. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It differs from the definition you give . Let's give Writ Keeper a chance to focus the discussion.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  18:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * My definition directly above for block universe/eternalism was "all times are equally real", that seems to me to be no different from "objects from both the past and the future exist just as much as present objects". But you're right that this is a bit of a sidetrack; perhaps you could comment on my latest proposed edit at the bottom of the page, or we can wait for Writ Keeper to comment. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You said: “to qualify as an eternalist, one does not necessarily have to believe that future facts are completely determined by other events in their past or by metaphysical necessities”—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  19:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing in that quote says or implies that "future facts are completely determined by other events in their past or by metaphysical necessities", it just says that they already exist, so it doesn't contradict what I said. As an analogy, if you find a long sequence of numbers on a scroll of paper, naturally you believe that later numbers in the sequence already exist when you look at earlier ones, but the fact that they exist doesn't mean that the numbers were generated by a rule that meant later numbers were determined by earlier ones (so that if you knew the rule, you could predict later numbers before actually unrolling the scroll and looking at them, just by seeing earlier parts of the sequence). The sequence could be completely random, for example. Eternalism is usually understood to be compatible with the idea that there is a similar randomness to events in history, so eternalism shouldn't be conflated with determinism--that's what one of the quotes I provided at the beginning was saying, 'It does not help, either, that there is a tendency to conflate eternalism — the four-dimensional "block universe" view — with causal determinism.' (source) Hypnosifl (talk) 19:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I am not sure that William James ever used the specific phrase "block universe"--the closest quote I can find is one from "The Dilemma of Determinism" where he wrote "What does determinism profess? It professes that those parts of the universe already laid down absolutely appoint and decree what the other parts shall be. The future has no ambiguous possibilities hidden in its womb... the whole is in each and every part, and welds it with the rest into an absolute unity, an iron block, in which there can be no equivocation or shadow of turning." However, it does seem that modern philosophers discussing the late 19th-/early 20th-century conflict between a school of monistic philosophers who saw everything as determined by its relation to the whole, like Bradley, and those who disagreed with them, like James and Dewey and Whitehead and Russell, do use "block universe" in a way that includes the concept of determinism, as on p. 180 of Alfred North Whitehead: Essays on His Philosophy, where George Louis Kline writes of "the Block universe view described thus by Russell: 'There are such invariable relations between different events at the same or different times that, given the state of the whole universe throughout any finite time, however short, every previous and subsequent event can theoretically be determined as a function of the given events during that time.'" So Kline at least is using "block universe" to mean something more than the view that all times are equally real. The fact remains that many philosophers define "block universe" to mean nothing more than this, so I would propose something like "also called the 'block universe' view by many philosophers [with references I gave], although some define 'block universe' to include additional concepts like the future being determined by the past [with a reference to Kline and any others who unambiguously define 'block universe' to mean something more]". Would that be acceptable? Hypnosifl (talk) 18:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed the fact that one of your sources directly quoted James using "block-universe", in A Pluralistic Universe. Later in the lecture there is another quote where he seems to be including in the term some sort of monistic idea of the universe being a "rationalistic" whole where none of the parts make sense except in relation to the whole: "Here, then, you have the plain alternative, and the full mystery of the difference between pluralism and monism, as clearly as I can set it forth on this occasion. It packs up into a nutshell:—Is the manyness in oneness that indubitably characterizes the world we inhabit, a property only of the absolute whole of things, so that you must postulate that one-enormous-whole indivisibly as the prius of there being any many at all—in other words, start with the rationalistic block-universe, entire, unmitigated, and complete?" Hypnosifl (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:LEDE.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  18:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence I proposed is still rather brief, and I think clear definition of terms is important in philosophy. But an alternate suggestion I'd be happy with would be to keep the "sometimes called" in the lede, then add a footnote which says something like "many philosophers use "eternalism" and "block universe" interchangeably ", followed by the references I provided, "though others use 'block universe' to denote additional concepts such as determinism", followed by the Kline references and any others (edit: including the James reference, see above) that unambiguously show the author defining "block universe" to mean something more than just the view that all times are equally real. Hypnosifl (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Eternalism: Proposed resolution
I've read through the above discussion. It is clear that Eternalism and Block Universe/Time are very closely related concepts. As with many philosophical concepts, their definitions are a bit vague, and perhaps vary from author to author. Some authors define them as identical, some define them in peculiar ways. But all interpretations are very, very similar. My suggestion is this: In other words: in topics like this, it is best to just present the various viewpoints of the sources, in a very factual, objective way; and let the readers draw their own conclusions. Does that sound like a good idea? --Noleander (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The article will explain to the reader that there are a variety of definitions/interpretations of the terms Eternalism, Block Universe, and Block Time.
 * The article will identify (in the lead) some of the common themes in the definitions/interpretations
 * The article will focus on enumerating the significant persons that defined/interpreted these terms; the article will identify the sources and give the dates of the definitions/interpretations
 * The article will not assert, in the encylopedia's voice that all three terms are positively identical; However, the article will state that some (but not all) authorities consider Eternalism to be the same as Block Universe/Time
 * By way of example, there are many WP articles that objectively present multiple definitions/interpretations. For example, the Socialism article's lead states "There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism."   And Facism's article includes "Historians, political scientists and other scholars have long debated the exact nature of fascism. Each form of fascism is distinct, leaving many definitions too wide or narrow. Since the 1990s, scholars including Stanley Payne, Roger Eatwell, Roger Griffin and Robert O. Paxton have been gathering a rough consensus on the ideology's core tenets."   Other articles that have a similar approach are Atheism and Anthropic principle.  That is the sort of flavor I am suggesting for Eternalism.  --Noleander (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, 100%—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  04:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know that there are multiple definitions of "eternalism" among modern philosophers; at least, no one has pointed to any sources that give different definitions. As for "block universe", what do you think of my proposal above, namely: 'an alternate suggestion I'd be happy with would be to keep the "sometimes called" in the lede, then add a footnote which says something like "many philosophers use "eternalism" and "block universe" interchangeably ", followed by the references I provided, "though others use 'block universe' to denote additional concepts such as determinism", followed by the Kline references and any others (edit: including the James reference, see above) that unambiguously show the author defining "block universe" to mean something more than just the view that all times are equally real.' Hypnosifl (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, your thought of keeping "sometimes called" in the lede (with a footnote) is good.   But I'm trying to look at the bigger picture:  Rather than focus on one word in the lede ("sometimes" vs "always") I'm suggesting that throughout the entire article the tone should be "There are a variety of interpretations of these three terms;  person A in 1925 said ...; person B in 1948 said ...;  person D asserts that E and BU are the same; ... ".  Just present the different viewpoints of the sources and avoid synthesizing in the encyclopedia's voice.    --Noleander (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you (or other commenters) think my proposed footnote is itself OK? As for the rest of the article, since the main focus is eternalism as a philosophy of time, and I don't think anyone has suggested that the term "eternalism" means anything other than "all times are equally real", I don't think it's needed to go into a lot of detail about other uses of "block universe" outside of sections on the history of these ideas (since these sections naturally tend to include ideas that are related to but not quite identical to the modern notion of eternalism). As far as I can tell, the only clear examples of "block universe" being used to mean something different are either by historical proponents and opponents of the type monism put forth by the British idealists in the late 19th and early 20th century (and maybe some other non-British Absolute idealists around the same time, like Josiah Royce), or by modern philosophers discussing this historical debate. If there are examples of "block universe" being used in other contexts, such that the editors can reach a consensus that the person using it is clearly using it to mean something different than "all times are equally real", those uses could be discussed too. So far I'm not convinced that any of the sources brought up to date show that "block universe" is sometimes meant to include concepts specifically from the theory of relativity, even if relativity is often interpreted to imply the view that all times are equally real, so the footnote I proposed only specifically mentions other uses related to Absolute idealism, but it leaves open the possibility that there could be "other" uses of block universe as well, so it doesn't take a definite stance on the relativity issue. Hypnosifl (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the footnote is fine. We may have a solution here:  (1) use the word "sometimes"  in the lead;  (2) include the footnote; and (3) the article must focus on simply re-stating what the reliable sources say about the topic (if there are multiple or contradictory definitions, so be it).   Is that acceptable to everyone?  --Noleander (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, this solution sounds good to me. Hopefully it's also OK to tweak the second part of the footnote a little to make it a little more precise; I was thinking that it could be "though others use 'block universe' to denote additional concepts; for example, in discussions of British Idealism, 'block universe' sometimes denotes the idea that the state of every part of reality was completely determined by its relation to other parts, or to the indivisible whole." (I'm trying to come up with a summary that will encompass both the Kline quote and the James quote, since the James quote doesn't mention 'determinism', but does say 'Is the manyness in oneness that indubitably characterizes the world we inhabit, a property only of the absolute whole of things, so that you must postulate that one-enormous-whole indivisibly as the prius of there being any many at all—in other words, start with the rationalistic block-universe, entire, unmitigated, and complete?') Hypnosifl (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the multi-part footnote:
 * (2a) WP:OR Find at least one source that says "many philosophers use 'eternalism' and 'block universe' interchangeably " and say it in the body like normal. Do not insert OR in a footnote that says a half dozen "also called" equals "many philosophers... interchangeably ". Most do not use them interchangeably . Most use one or the other, in a qualified sense.
 * (2b) WP:V I don't know what you mean by "the James reference" but Kline p.180 does not support "though others use 'block universe' to denote additional concepts such as determinism" (emphasis added). Block universes are prima facie deterministic unless they're "growing block universes" or whatever. Russell's "Block Universe" is just a version of Laplace's demon: the only similarity is determinism. Russell actually calls it the law of universal causation:
 * —<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  15:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * —<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  15:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (2a) I would say that five professional philosophers defining them in an interchangeable way ("also called", "This view is called 'the block universe theory' or 'eternalism'", etc.), several in reference works that are intended as broad views of the field rather than just their own personal views, is sufficient for "many". Are you disagreeing about the number being sufficient (if so, what number would you suggest is sufficient), or disagreeing that the sources I mention actually do define them interchangeably (Writ Keeper seemed to think they did, but if you dispute this we could try to get others' opinions), or both? I could also find many more references showing philosophers who treat the definition of "block universe" as "all times are equally real" (if you put "block universe" in quotes and do a search on google books, it seems to me that every book by a philosopher that I saw on the first few pages of this search was using the term this way), even if they don't mention the term "eternalism" (but I think you'd agree that 'eternalism' is generally defined in this way). And the only modern source you've shown that clearly assumes a different definition is one discussing the historical conflict between the British Idealists and others like Whitehead--if "most" define block universe to mean something different than eternalism, then it shouldn't be hard to find other sources that clearly give definitions which differ from "all times equally real" outside of ones discussing this particular historical debate.


 * (2b) "The James reference" refers to the same source by William James that you found above, which I was quoting from in my previous comment. In the "Comments by Writ Keeper" section, in my comment beginning "Sorry, I missed the fact...", I pointed to the quote from this source where James seems to most clearly define "block universe" to mean something more than just "all times equally real": '"Here, then, you have the plain alternative, and the full mystery of the difference between pluralism and monism, as clearly as I can set it forth on this occasion. It packs up into a nutshell:—Is the manyness in oneness that indubitably characterizes the world we inhabit, a property only of the absolute whole of things, so that you must postulate that one-enormous-whole indivisibly as the prius of there being any many at all—in other words, start with the rationalistic block-universe, entire, unmitigated, and complete?"' But James does not use the word "determinism" in this quote, hence my proposed modification of the second part of the footnote. The only place James mentions "determinism" in this lecture is alongside "block universe", but it is also alongside various other problems he has with monism such as "reality lapsing into appearance", so it's not clear whether determinism and the block-universe are meant to be two distinct items on the list or whether the block-universe is meant to be a synonym for "universal determinism": '"the only way to escape from the paradoxes and perplexities that a consistently thought-out monistic universe suffers from as from a species of auto-intoxication—the mystery of the ‘fall’ namely, of reality lapsing into appearance, truth into error, perfection into imperfection; of evil, in short; the mystery of universal determinism, of the block-universe eternal and without a history, etc."' Hypnosifl (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with: "five professional philosophers defining them in an interchangeable way", "also called", "or" or "known as"; but step away from the "etc."

How many do I think?

" interchangeably " means synonymous... It appears on this page eight times: =1= =2= =3= =4= =5= =6= =7= =8= and none of them are anywhere near Writ Keeper. You did manage to persuade him/her that they're synonymous, but I was under the impression you're willing to agree that's too simplistic?

"Broad views", Dowden... e.g. p.116 "meaning is up for grabs in the struggle to resolve the conflicts among metaphysical assumptions, intuitions, meanings, and scientific knowledge. A delicate balancing act..." He isn't using them " interchangeably ": he is shifting back and forth from "eternalism" to "block universe theory" conversationally, as the dialogue flows from argument to argument... Naomi is certainly an eternalist, which is to say a block universe theory proponent... just bear in mind that he uses the former in the context of time travel, special relativity, relativity of simultaneity, and the ontology itself; while he uses the latter in the context of Minkowski diagrams, reality of past and future, fixed determinism (if not "causal" determinism), endure-perdure, temporal stages and the 2-D/3-D/4-D geometric utility of the "metaphor" (p.104) itself. I'd recommend Dowden p.103–116 as a reader-friendly overview, (search inside).

The prolix speculation goes off the rails after the questions, somewhere around sourcing for "block universe" as "all times are equally real" TL;DR. All this is about the word "sometimes"... and there is a two-to-one consensus among editors of the article to keep it. I decline entertaining the notion of a sprawling subtext in the footnotes in lieu of simply suggesting a different word. Please note that the entire lede does not need to be rewritten in order to modify that.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  01:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You did manage to persuade him/her that they're synonymous, but I was under the impression you're willing to agree that's too simplistic?


 * I'm willing to agree not all philosophers define them to be synonymous, but I think the specific ones I quoted do understand them to be synonymous, and I think Writ Keeper agreed that this was the natural way to parse the references I gave. I think it's over-literal to demand that the words in the wiki article precisely match the words in the reference, so that if a reference says something like 'this view is called “the block universe theory” or “eternalism”', we aren't allowed to parse this and summarize with something like "considers them interchangeable" or "considers them to be different terms for the same view".


 * Likewise, by putting a "citation needed" after "many", are you suggesting that I need to find a source that literally says that "many" philosophers use the terms in such-and-such a way in order to include that word in the wiki summary? If so I also don't agree with this degree of literalness. And it's unclear what a single source saying "many" would prove to you anyway--unless the author has actually done a detailed poll of others in the field, the use of a word like "many", "most", "commonly" etc. would only indicate that this was the author's impression about how the terms were commonly used from the author's own reading of the literature. Some judgment by wiki editors is required for deciding what are "common" uses of the terms, how "many" define them, etc.; if a large number of reliable sources from professionals in the field are found using the word a certain way, editors can judge that words like "common" and "many" are reasonable. if you google the words "many" and "argue" (or "many" and "scientists", "many" and "philosophers", etc.) along with the restriction "site:en.wikipedia.org", I think very few wiki articles which say that "many" argue such-and-such a position actually offer a cite to a source that literally uses the word "many", usually it's just a question of the editors finding this summary reasonable because the argument is considered a mainstream one that a large number of reliable sources make.


 * Another proposal for the wording choice here would be for the main article to say Eternalism, commonly defined as the view that there are no ontological differences between past, present and future, followed by a footnote showing that "eternalism" is in fact defined this way by many philosophers, is sometimes called the "block universe" theory, followed by a footnote whose first part says The "block universe" theory is also defined by many philosophers as the view that all times have the same ontological status, followed by the references I gave and then a whole lot more references which define "block universe" this way but don't necessarily mention the term "eternalism".


 * Also, you didn't clarify if you still object to my proposal for the second part of the footnote (though others use 'block universe' to denote additional concepts; for example, in discussions of British Idealism, 'block universe' sometimes denotes the idea that the state of every part of reality was completely determined by its relation to other parts, or to the indivisible whole) now that I showed you which James source I was referring to, and pointed out that he didn't clearly indicate whether "determinism" was meant to by synonymous with "block universe or just another related issue he had with the monistic view.


 * The Dowden dialogue you mention between "Naomi" and "John" does not indicate any difference in the basic definitions of "block universe" and "eternalism" (precise definitions aren't even offered in the dialogue). You may be correct that each is more likely to be used in certain contexts, but a difference in the mental associations two terms bring to mind, the mental imagery they tend to call forth and such, does not indicate a difference in their technical definitions for philosophers. Hypnosifl (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * WP:TENDENTIOUS waste of time, case closed.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  22:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think the situation has been resolved; I still want to add a footnote along the lines of my various proposals, and you would presumably revert any of my suggestions. Could we get some input from others on the following questions?


 * (1) Does a phrase like "many philosophers" require a cite to a source that actually uses the word "many" or a synonym, or is it sufficient to find a decent number of cites to philosophers offering a particular definition, especially ones from reference works from mainstream publishers that are meant to serve as general guides to the subject? My impression from many other wikipedia articles was that a loose phrase like this was OK as long as there were at least some mainstream sources to support it, and presumably a consensus among editors that this was a reasonably common view in the field.


 * (2) Beyond the "many" issue, are there any other objections to following proposal for an edit: have the main article say Eternalism, commonly defined as the view that there are no ontological differences between past, present and future, followed by a footnote showing that "eternalism" is in fact defined this way by many philosophers, is sometimes called the "block universe" theory, followed by a footnote whose first part says The "block universe" theory is also defined by many philosophers as the view that all times have the same ontological status, followed by the references I gave and then a whole lot more references which define "block universe" this way but don't necessarily mention the term "eternalism".


 * Then, the second part of the footnote could say though others use 'block universe' to denote additional concepts; for example, in discussions of British Idealism, 'block universe' sometimes denotes the idea that the state of every part of reality was completely determined by its relation to other parts, or to the indivisible whole. (I'm trying to come up with a summary that will encompass both the Kline quote and the James quote, since the James quote doesn't mention 'determinism', but does say 'Is the manyness in oneness that indubitably characterizes the world we inhabit, a property only of the absolute whole of things, so that you must postulate that one-enormous-whole indivisibly as the prius of there being any many at all—in other words, start with the rationalistic block-universe, entire, unmitigated, and complete?') Hypnosifl (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello all, I am yet another volunteer here at the dispute resolution noticeboard. It looks like Noleander's proposed resolution is a good one, and I see Hypnosifl is in favour. Machine Elf, does this general solution sound acceptable for you? If you find the general solution here acceptable, then I think the best thing to do here would be to go back to the article talk page and work out the specifics of the solution between you. If you have more problems after trying to work through things on the talk page, I recommend requesting formal mediation. What would you both say to this? Best regards — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 11:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it does not sound good to me for the reasons I've stated.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  15:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please close this. It's not clear how to do that.—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  15:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not quite sure what you're referring to when you say "it's not clear how to do that". Could you clarify for me? Thanks — <span style="color: #194D00; font-family: Palatino, Times, serif">Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 17:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)