text:
Talk:Color wheel

Studying the added section
It is talking almost exclusively about the RYB color wheel. Any improvements to make?? 66.245.119.43 20:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Should this redirect to color circle?? Jaberwocky6669 04:10, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, the layout of this article should be like complimentary colors, separating RGB/CMY from RYB.

Restoration
I've restored this article from a redirect to Color theory, since this is a topic that definitely deserves its own article. Perhaps in 2004, when the article was cleared and redirected, it wouldn't have been important enough for an article, but the color wheel is a very important topic in the study of art, and simply redirecting to Color theory (where the color wheel is not at all discussed in depth) doesn't help anyone. It was probably never created again because it was a redirect and just passed over. -- BlastOButter42 See  Hear  Speak  22:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

merge from color circle
“Color circle” and “color wheel” describe the same thing, as far as I can tell, and should therefore be merged. Maybe in the process this article can be improved, its inaccuracies can be removed, and some sources can be found. --jacobolus (t) 01:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Nevermind, I retract my suggestion. --jacobolus (t) 01:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Seems like it might have been a good idea. What changed your mind? Dicklyon 04:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Well the color circle article says that it's a different concept, used in psychology. But it doesn't really give a great explanation of exactly what it's used for (some examples).  Both articles definitely need improvement, but I won't second-guess the color circle article and claim the concepts are the same.  --19:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 * My quick look for refs that would distinguish them led me to believe they are the same, and that the distinction on the color circle page is unverifiable. Dicklyon 20:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Well would you advocate merging them then, and maybe putting a section on this article about "use in psychology" or similar? --jacobolus (t) 18:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes to the merge. Yes to the section if the sources support that. Dicklyon 18:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I put the merge template back. When the merge happens, I expect it will result in a "use in psychology" section, though it would be nice to have some of the authors of the color circle article chime in about that. --jacobolus (t) 19:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * A merger has been suggested before and defeated, due to the fact that the two concepts are entirely different. A colour wheel is entirely an artistic concept, a colour circle is entirely a psychological one. As I pointed out last time this came up,that would make a merger analogous to merging the articles on music and acoustics. As can be seen from looking at the diagrams on the two pages, the concepts are far from identical, and a quick glance at the text indicates that they also have completely different functions and purposes. I strongly oppose any proposal to merge the two pages, as I did last time. Grutness...wha?  23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Grutness, what's your source? When I google on color-circle and psychology, I get a lot fewer hits than color-wheel and psychology.  Is there some definitive or reliable definition or source that you're basing your assertion on? Dicklyon 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have plenty of sources, from textbooks used during my time as a PhD student in psychology - the Krech et al and Schiffrin sources at the bottom of the color wheel article are two to start with - and also references used in my current occupation as a professional artist. ISTR that at least one of these sources (possibly Gregory's Eye and brain) compares and contrasts the two, spelling out the differences between a colour wheel and a colour circle. Give me a few days, and I'll easily be able to extend the article at color wheel. I'd do it today, but I have an exhibition opening in a couple of days time, so time is pretty tight at the moment. Grutness...wha?  00:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Most online mentions of "color circle" seem to be about "newton's color circle" or similar. Maybe it'd be best to move the article to, e.g. "color circle (psychology)"?  I'll be glad to see your comparison of the two though, before judging.  --jacobolus (t) 00:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 * So maybe the distinction is primarily Gregory's distinction? I've never encountered it, and can't find much evidence in book search. See for example this book, or this one, or here, or one more, or even the World Book, or one final one, where the terms seem to be used interchangebly.  If there's an important distinction to made, we certain need to provide a clear reference to who makes the distinction.  Maybe Gregory is the right source for that.  On the other hand, if the difference is not commonly recognized, that could best be done in a section of a merged article. Dicklyon 02:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I've now provided a number of different references, and expanded the colour circle article to the point where it should hopefully be quite obvious what the differences are. The terms are most certainly not used interchangeably (in fact, there is a tool used in psychophysics called the colour wheel, which is different again - a spinning disc which is used to simulate the mixing of different colours) - it's possibly for this reason that "colour circle" -"colour wheel" won't be a reliable guide of differences or similarities between the two. It's also why the term "colour wheel" is never used for this portrayal of spectral sensitivity in psychology (by way of comparison, the term colour circle is rare in art - a google search of "colour wheel" + art returns 30 times as many hits as "colour circle" + art). Believe me, anyone who has done considerable amounts of work in both art and visual psychophysics would be horrified at the suggestion that the two are the same. As I said, it's like saying music and acoustics are the same thing. If I get the time in the next few days, I'll try expanding the colour wheel article in the same way that I have the other article. Grutness...wha?  07:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at 'Color Theory' would probably help the discussion here. Color theory is mainly an art design field with aspects brought in from perception and psychology as well. So color wheel and color circle might fall into the same discussion of color theory but niether of them falls 'under' the other. A specific test would be to look at the 'color circle' and see if green is directly opposite from red - this is the complementary color relationship. If the opposition is not shown in the diagram, then that diagram is not a 'color wheel' In looking at the 'color circle' image the relationships are not those of a 'color wheel' - need sources for this? - look at basic art design theory and color theory PunctumD 03:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)PunctumD

 * I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. The issue here is whether a "color circle" is any different from just a regular additive mixing "color wheel", or is just the same thing, but describing the use in psychology.  If it's just a different use for essentially the same thing, then it might be prudent to merge them into one article.  If it's something more distinct than that, then leaving it in a separate article might be more useful.  The "color circle" certainly has (additive, as in colored lights) complementary color relationships shown: that's one of its main purposes for existing.  If these complements are different from those on a regular "artistic" color wheel, that is because the 19th century color wheel had things quite wrong.  For real visual-perceptual complements, take a look at the hues across from each-other in the Munsell color system (hues stacked on top of each-other in this diagram), on which most modern models are based to one degree or another.  --jacobolus (t) 06:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I still don't get it either. If there's a clear difference, one would think it would be possible to find something online describing that difference.  I pointed out several books where the terms are used interchangeably, it appears to me.  Can nobody point out sources for the distinction, other than in dusty refs that I can't easily get at.  I know, I should have Gregory's book, and I will order one.  Dicklyon 07:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I pointed out a number books where the two are clearly mentioned as different concepts. I certainly don't know why you keep referring to gregory's book as if it's the bible on the subject - most of the information mentioned and referenced in the article is from the several other books I listed - Gregory's book is a fairly simplistic overview; more detailed explanations are given in a couple of the other texts. Given that the two terms are used consistently by a number of writers on the subject as different concepts, and with consistent definitions of the difference between them, and given that those differences are now listed at colour wheel, I don't see the problem. Jacobolus, to answer your points, the colour circle might be described as one specific variety of colour wheel, used for different purposes, with different design, and with different historical antecedents. It is also considerably different in its hue relationships to the munsell colour wheel. The use, application, history, and specifications of the two are different enough that mixing them into one article is not a reasonable, practical, or sensible option. As I said, once the workload due to my current exhibition has decreased, I am planning to expand both articles. Once that is done it should be very clear that merging them would be not only ridiculous, but the mere suggestion of merging them would also be ridiculous. Please give me some time to do so. Grutness...wha?  11:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I don't mean to suggest they are the same. I was just trying to explain to PunctumD what this discussion has been about.  --jacobolus (t) 11:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I was referring to Gregory because you said "at least one of these sources (possibly Gregory's Eye and brain) compares and contrasts the two, spelling out the differences between a colour wheel and a colour circle," and because you haven't specifically pointed out others that do so; the refs don't make it clear. I still haven't seen anything I can read on this, so I was going to try to get a copy of that one;  please recommend others, too, so I can see where you're coming from.  Nothing that I've been able to find so far makes the distinctions that are so key to your position this. Dicklyon 15:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Of the ones I've listed so far, the Schiffman would probably be the best place to start. Grutness...wha?  23:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, I got the Schiffman book. It does use color circle in the sense that you describe, but it does not contrast that with color wheel (except that it shows a spinning wheel that it calls a color wheel).  It doesn't make a case for the term color circle being distinct from color wheel for that concept, so it doesn't counter the multiple sources I cited above that use the terms interchangeably. Plus, Schiffman goes into a lot of detail that shows how it can be used like a chromaticity diagram to find the hue and saturation of mixtures of different colors of light.  If I'm not mistaken, colorimetry shows that that interpretion can not work with a circle; you need to use the actual shape of a projection of tri-stimulus parameters into a plane for that description to work; so he discredits himself by the false details.  I checked another section on a topic that I'm expert on, and found it similarly flawed and misleading (pitch).  So, while I don't mind using this book as a reference, it should not be given a lot of weight, and should be balanced with a more mainstream point of view. Dicklyon 06:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

 * The color glossary also distinguishes color wheel from color circle, incorporating descriptions from two different sources; on the color circle description, it describes it about as Schiffman does, but has a note in a box indicating that it's not precise, and that for more precie calculation of additive color mixing one needs to use CIE 1931 colorimetry; that supports my interpretation of where Schiffman came up short by suggesting that it works as he described, instead of saying it's just a conceptual approximation. Anyway, the description of the "standard" additive color wheel there says it has no information about saturation, so they reduce it to a hue circle.  That glossary also uses the terms as if interchangable: "Hue determines the position on the color wheel or color circle."  They never really contrast the concepts; they appear to be minor variants of the same idea, which could best be treated in the same article.  Dicklyon 14:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Based on these sources, it seems clear that the difference between color wheel and color circle, written up by Grutness and citing Schiffman in this diff, is flawed; it is not explicitly supported by Schiffman, so is essentially original research. Dicklyon 14:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

 * It has been a few weeks since Grutness's big show finished up. Maybe he's no longer interested in discussing this?  Should we just go ahead and do the merge? Dicklyon 06:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity between this and color wheel technology
I noticed that this article is referenced from the article on DLP because the article is titled "Color Wheel". However, the color wheel that the DLP article is referring to is an actual physical wheel that spins to allow a device to reproduce each of the different color values with only a single light source. There should probably be another article that describes this device, with this article pointing out the distinction. 74.74.230.204 05:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

 * Sounds reasonable. I've never heard of this device… --jacobolus (t) 00:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The device is also known as a filter wheel, or color filter wheel. See some here and here.  We should do an article on it. Dicklyon 00:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

 * And there's another color wheel device that spins to mix the reflected light and make mixed colors from colored sectors on the wheel, for demonstration and experimental purposes. There's one shown in the Schiffman book. Dicklyon 06:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

 * That sounds rather like the "Maxwell disk" that has been used to explore color mixing since the mid 19th century. --jacobolus (t) 07:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, that's what it is; aka a "color top" according to the color glossary. It appears that only Schiffman calls it a color wheel.  Dicklyon 14:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

 * here's US patent 717596 from 1903 by Albert Munsell for a “spinning-top” for such a use. --jacobolus (t) 10:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

merge tertiary color into this article
Tertiary color doesn't make sense, except with reference to a "color wheel" or similar model, so all relevant explanation would really need to be explained in both places. Also, an article on "tertiary colors" isn't going to add any information that wouldn't be appropriate at a "color wheel" article. So it should be merged into a section of this article. --jacobolus (t) 18:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree; there's not much to merge, since that's unsourced, but this is a better place for the concept. Dicklyon 18:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

 * It has been several months since this supposed "merge", but none of the information available on the old tertiary color is available here. Seeing as no one seems to want to actually incorporate the information (including me), I'm going to restore the old article. I searched for 'tertiary color' because I wanted to learn what the names of the tertiary colors were. I shouldn't have to sift through the history pages to find out. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I merged one small concept from there, but not the ugly tables and color names, none of which was sourced or otherwise useful, as far as I can tell. I think we should put that article out of its misery again, but I'll wait and see if you can convert it to something sourced first. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Merging color circle
I've started to merge color circle, after obtaining another one of the references that Grutness cites to try to show that color wheel and color circle are distinctly different concepts. Like the Schiffman book, the Krech et al. book does not make a distinction between these concepts, but does use the term "color wheel" for the "color top", a spinning device with colored sectors. None of his sources provide anything to contradict the many sources that say that color wheel and color circle are alternative names for the same concept.

But the merge is not so easy. I do want to maintain some of what he says about psychologists preferring the term color circle and using it for additive colors, and artists preferring color wheel and subtractive or paint-mixing color models. That seems to be true, but may be WP:OR; at least it's hard to find a source that lays it out. And the details that Grutness reports about what Schiffman says about additive mixing color determination via straight lines inside the circle are just false, even if "verifiable" in that source. I'd rather report what's true, which is that for that to work, you need a chromaticity space with a horseshoe-shaped spectral local and a straight purple line, not a circle.

So I could use some help trying to merge the good parts of that article here (or there). And getting rid of the color schemes stuff, moving it to that other article. Or just some suggestions and/or encouragement (or not) about doing this merge. Dicklyon 04:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of that color circle article, like the history and the comparison to color wheel was written in one big diff by Grutness, mostly unsourced. So maybe it's OK to just ignore it. I'd like to say something about Young, Helmholtz, etc., but I don't think what it says about them, and Newton, is right. Dicklyon 04:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, merged color circle and tertiary color here. Improvements are welcome. Dicklyon (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusing section
"The arrangement of colors around the color circle is often considered to be in correspondence with the wavelengths of light, as opposed to hues, in accord with the original color circle of Isaac Newton. Modern color circles include the purples, however, between red and violet."

By whom and how are they corresponded with wavelengths? What does this mean? How is it "in accord with" Isaac Newton? Which part isn't in accord with him?

Also, how are modern circles different than Newton's? Newton's hue circle also includes the non-spectral colors for the purposes of demonstrating color mixing. SharkD (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * Newton's color circle shows violet adjacent to red. It's not clear to me whether he recognized purples or non-spectral colors in between.  Dicklyon (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going by the image in this article, where the author superimposes the real spectrum upon Newton's chart. I didn't think to look closer at the text labels (or thought they matched up when I first looked at it). SharkD (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, according to these sources, the story is more complex than that. I suggest you work on it. Dicklyon (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought I came across a passage in a previous search of Opticks that referred to certain hues that could only be created by mixing and not by refraction, but I was unable to find it again. I might have been mistaken. SharkD (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In this source, the author acknowledges something to the effect. Quote: "...although in the text Newton does refer to such purple mixtures as lying near the line OD..." Not sure whether the author agrees that these colors are present in the chart as well. SharkD (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Lots of images
I think that most of the images in the article could be moved to the gallery, as they're very similar and are mainly decorative when compared to the text they appear next to. SharkD (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 * One main reason to include images on pages is to add variety to the layout, and be “decorative.” I don’t really see any reason that this article would be improved by moving all the images to a gallery at the bottom. —jacobolus (t) 05:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * Same here; decorative is good. Dicklyon (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

 * I'm interested from a design viewpoint, but I've never studied optics or colo(u)r theory for either art or science. My feeling as a layman is that the images are fine where they are, but the commentary needs a little fleshing out. It looks as if the basic science has been reduced to a coherent whole, but now it needs a little adumbration or (opposite metaphor) elucidation for those of us who don't aren't already familiar with the science. Once the text is filled out, it should match the images a little more comfortably and the problem should diminish. Pushing all the images down to a gallery instead of better explaining each one is the opposite of the approach I'd favo(u)r. —— Shakescene (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, right now it's just a vertical gallery. One that's just spread out across the article. SharkD (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed non-informative history section
I have removed the following as it was purely a reference note and added nothing to the explanation of the subject:

 * An in-depth history of the color circles, wheels, spirals, triangles, charts, and other order systems has been published, as a chapter of an e-book, by Sarah Lowe hard, focusing on the eighteenth century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogre lawless (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"The Color Wheel" hatnote
Since "color wheel" and "the color wheel" are easily interchanged, and if you're lazy, entering the first into the search box brings you here, there should be a hatnote to the second, which you may be wanting, since it is almost the same title, just missing the definite article, which is something that is dropped by many people in other cases of "the". -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I turned this into a DAB page, since there are three ambiguous terms. --KarlB (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good move. Thanks.  Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Confusing text on "The color circle and color vision" segment.
and
 * The contrasting color of certain color, located opposite of that certain color, on color wheel.
 * Arranging spectral colors in a circle to predict admixture of light stems from work by Sir Isaac Newton.

SergioPFloyd (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Adding a "Use American English" template?
Any objections to adding a "Use American English" template to this page? The page has used the American spelling of "color" since its creation in 2004. Occasionally edits have been made using the British spelling, but subsequently these edits always get changed to the American spelling. Yesterday an editor, Clawraich (Dalek), made the following change to the first line: A colo(u)r wheel or colo(u)r circle is an abstract illustrative organization ... adding the "(u)"s.

I reverted the edit, but today the editor reverted mine back to his/her version - with the comment to "Consider Commonwealth Spelling" - logic not applied to any other English Wikipedia articles. As it stands now, the sentence looks very odd, but I have no wish to get into an edit war. Would appreciate some input on this. And again, I think it would be good to add the "Use American English" template. Thanks! - Xenxax (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 * I've no objection as the article was originally written in en-US. I would however suggest, just like with similar articles, that we add a note of (colour wheel in Commonwealth English) in the first line, and then use en-US throughout the rest of the article. Using colo(u)r is just clunky and prone to misinterpretation (and not the way we do it on Wikipedia.) Canterbury Tail   talk  16:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Art Color wheel info incorrect
I don't know about the psychology color wheel, but the green instead of yellow is used in the technology sector (simplistic example is the old projection TV's with the red, blue, and green lights). As for the artist color wheel, the middle is brown. Brown is produced when all the colors are mixed. Black and white are not colors; they are values. StrangeDoc (talk) 06:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

1708 image
Per the sourcing of the image, the artist is known to be "CB," with speculation that it is either the artist Claude Boutet, or the publisher Christophe Ballard. I was waffling on if this was worth explaining in full in the caption, but that feels somewhat excessive and off topic for the article -- particularly as, going by the French Wikipedia, known facts about Boutet are almost solely limited to that he created this one painting, and that we don't necessarily always need to note the creator of a work in a caption when further details are available by clicking through (for example the caption of the 1908 image in this page does not name the artist), and the artist is not known with certainty. But pinging --Yaksar (let's chat) 21:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly wouldn't oppose a caption with something like "speculated to be by Claude Boutet or Christophe Ballard," although that creates the question of why the authorship of non notable people is necessary in a caption. Perhaps we can uncover some more conclusive answers though.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are what appear to be reliable sources indicating that CB was determined to be Claude Boutet. Dicklyon (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the most common way it is described, particularly in the more academic sourcing, is "attributed to Claude Boutet," why don't we just do that?--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

no further explanation. While there appears to be an intuitive relationship between color space and pitch space, humans do not seem to experience "octave equivalence" (2:1 equivalence) in color space, much less the 3:2 almost-equivalence that leads to the circle of fifths. If there is research contradicting my statements I would like to take a look. 65.33.108.211 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The color wheel is wrong, it has blue compressed for unknown reasons
Please see, in particular please compare to. 141.239.252.245 (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Hello. The color wheel in [3] is based on the sRGB color space (not the RGB color model), and thus there is a semi-arbitrary gamma correction between the primary and secondary colors. A "true" RGB (additive) or CMY (substractive color wheel) (with linear mixtures between the primary and secondary colors) would be as depicted in [2]. 8-leaf clover (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Is sRGB still valid in the post-1996 world beyond phosphors? WaikikiVice (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Currently, sRGB is a very important standard, probably the most important RGB color standard in most applications; but, as I explained, it has a gamma correction that doesn't correlate with real mixtures of light nor pigments. That is why what the image in the article depicts is the linear sRGB color wheel, not the sRGB one. Yes, the RGB and CMY triads in this color wheel are still the sRGB values for those colors, but that is because there is not such thing as an "objective" or "universal" values for RYGCBM that I could choose; (maybe the LMS color wheel could be considered a "universal" RGB color wheel, because it's directly based on physiological human color vision, but the "red" (L) in LMS is rose, the "green" (M) is almost cyan, and the "blue" (S) is violet. It is so perceptually uneven that it barely resembles a color wheel, making it unuseful as a first image for the article). 8-leaf clover (talk) 00:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * So, why should orange, cyan, and magenta have such larger angular representations than red, green, and blue? WaikikiVice (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Only one line segment corresponds to each hue, so the secondaries have as much representation as the primaries. You probably meant to ask why a slight variation in hue angle near the primaries produces a big change in perceived hue; while the same variation in hue angle near the secondaries produces a small perceived hue difference. That is because linear color spaces are not perceptually uniform. Human color perception is logarithmic, not linear. The sRGB approach is approximately logarithmic, but it's far from perceptual uniformity, too. Look at the primaries in your sRGB color wheel (the one that you think that is more "correct"); hues near the primaries are essentially indistinguishable from the primary itself, while hues near the secondaries are considerably different from the secondary in question. 8-leaf clover (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Color wheel


text:
Telida, Alaska

Telida (Tilaya-di or Tilayadi’ in Upper Kuskokwim) is an unincorporated community located in the Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area in the U.S. state of Alaska. At the 2010 census the population was 3, unchanged from 2000.

Geography
Telida is located at 63.3832623N, 153.2803835W, on the south side of the Swift Fork (McKinley Fork) of the Kuskokwim River, about 40 km by air northeast of McGrath.

The word Telida means 'whitefish' in the Upper Kuskokwim Athabaskan language.

History
Athabascan folklore says that Telida's residents are descended from two sisters, survivors of an attack by another Athabascan group, who fled from the McKinley area to Telida Lake where they discovered whitefish at its outlet. The women were later discovered by stragglers from the attacking party, who married the women and settled at the lake. The village of Telida is named after the lake.

The village has been located in three different places. The first village was located about 2 km upstream from present-day Telida. It was first visited by United States army explorers in 1899. When the Swift Fork changed course, the village was moved what is now called "Old Telida." In 1916, some residents moved to the present day site, "New Telida," about 7 km downstream from Old Telida. A Russian Orthodox church, St. Basil the Great, was built in Old Telida in 1918. A roadhouse was also built during this period. In 1920-21, Old Telida was a stopping point on the trail between McGrath and Nenana and hundreds of people used the roadhouse. In 1935, Old Telida flooded and the remaining residents relocated to New Telida.

In 1958, a fire burned an area in which the villagers constructed an airstrip. Many families moved to Takotna during the school year and lived in Telida only during summer months. A school was built in Telida in the 1970s, but the population has declined to almost nothing since.

Demographics
Telida first appeared on the 1980 U.S. Census as a census-designated place (CDP). In 1990, it lost that designation and was reclassified as an unincorporated Alaskan Native Village Statistical Area (ANVSA).

Transportation
Telida Airport (IATA: TLF, FAA: 2K5) is a public use airport serving Telida.

Education
It was previously served by the Telida School of the Iditarod Area School District.

The Telida Current began publication after the school received a copy machine. It was later published using the Quill, software for literacy

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Telida, Alaska


text:
Atlit detainee camp

The Atlit detainee camp was a concentration camp established by the authorities of Mandatory Palestine in the late 1930s on what is now the Israeli coastal plain, 20 km south of Haifa. Under British rule, it was primarily used to hold Jews and Arabs who were in administrative detention; it largely held Jewish immigrants who did not possess official entry permits. Tens of thousands of Jewish refugees were interned at the camp, which was surrounded by barbed wire and watchtowers.

The camp at Atlit now has a museum that covers the history of aliyah by non-permitted Jews. It was declared a National Heritage Site by Israel in 1987.

History
The camp at Atlit, established by the British government in the 1930s, was surrounded by barbed wire and watchtowers. Many of the detainees during the 1930s and 1940s were Jewish refugees from German-occupied Europe.

At Atlit camp, the men were sent to one side, women to the other. They were sprayed with DDT, then told to undress and enter the showers. In 1939–1948, tens of thousands of Jewish immigrants were interned here, men and women separated by barbed wire. Some internees stayed as long as 23 months.

WWII (camp active 1939-42)
Some of the Palestine Germans, including Templers living in their own colonies, who openly supported the Nazis, were declared enemy nationals by the British authorities and were detained at Atlit prior to deportation. In November 1940, the British authorities decided to send 5000 immigrants to detention camps on Mauritius. One of these deporting ships was the Patria. To stop the deportation, the Haganah, the Jewish underground militia in Palestine, exploded a bomb in the ship's hold on November 25. The size of the explosive charge had been seriously miscalculated, and the ship sank quickly. On board were 1800 refugees; 216 drowned in the disaster. The survivors from the Patria were detained in Atlit and not deported to Mauritius. They were released after a few months.

The Darien II arrived with 800 refugees in March 1941. They were detained at the Atlit camp until September 1942, when the camp was shut down.

Post-WWII British camp (1945-1948)
The Atlit camp was reopened in 1945 following World War II, as more and more immigrants arrived in Palestine. Most of them were Holocaust survivors from DP camps in Europe who made the journey through the Berihah and Ha'apala ("Aliya Beth") clandestine immigration network.

On October 10, 1945, the Palmach (special forces unit of the Haganah) broke into the camp and released 208 detainees, who escaped. Yitzhak Rabin, then a young officer, planned the raid and Nachum Sarig commanded it. Following this event, the British deported immigrants to Cyprus internment camps. These camps operated from 1946 through the establishment of the State of Israel.

Israel's wars (1948-49, 1967-70)
During the 1948 Arab–Israeli War, Atlit detainee camp served as a prisoner of war (POW) camp and civil internment camp for local Arabs.

POWs from the 1967 war including soldiers from Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, as well as Lebanese citizens were also held at Atlith camp.

Museum
One of the barracks has been restored, with clothes, books, dolls and everyday items donated by former inmates. Also displayed are boards on which prisoners scratched their names and countries of origin in the hopes of finding friends and family members from whom they had become separated during the Holocaust.

title: Atlit detainee camp


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upper south

Upper south
Is "Upper South" (of the USA, presumably) really a recognised concept? If so, forget I said anything. Deb 20:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * It seems Upper South exists, but the information on this page is purely on gardening. Delete or just retain the important stuff. JFW | T@lk  20:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not an article, and I don't think there's even a topic to be salvaged here. --Improv 20:57, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: cut and paste from a gardening site, and just a description, from that site, of its planting guide. The problem with "upper south" is that it's not a concrete distinction, and, of course, this is a misnamed article. Geogre 21:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip Ogre, now on Copyvio instead. — Bill 21:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Directory-based coherence protocols

I much appreciate this article. I'd just like to see some clarification. The English could use some work. It is kind of confusing due to the grammatical errors... Ryanarn


text:
Florian Znaniecki

Florian Witold Znaniecki (15 January 1882 – 23 March 1958) was a Polish and American philosopher and sociologist who taught and wrote in Poland and in the United States. Over the course of his work, he shifted his focus from philosophy to sociology. He remains a major figure in the history of Polish and American sociology; the founder of Polish academic sociology, and of an entire school of thought in sociology.

He won international renown as co-author, with William I. Thomas, of the study, The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1918–1920), which is considered the foundation of modern empirical sociology. He also made major contributions to sociological theory, introducing terms such as "humanistic coefficient" and "culturalism".

In Poland, he established the first Polish department of sociology at Adam Mickiewicz University, where he worked from 1920 to 1939.

His career in the US began at the University of Chicago (1917 to 1919) and continued at Columbia University (1932 to 1934 and 1939 to 1940) and at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (1942 to 1950).

He was the 44th President of the American Sociological Association (for the year 1954).

Childhood and education
Florian Znaniecki was born on 15 January 1882 at Świątniki, Congress Poland, a state controlled by the Russian Empire to Leon Znaniecki and Amelia, née Holtz. He received early schooling from tutors, then attended secondary schools at Warsaw and Częstochowa. While in secondary school, he was a member of an underground study group, specializing in history, literature and philosophy. His secondary-school grades were average at best, and he had to repeat a year of school; this was largely due to his extracurricular interest in Polish-language study, which was banned under the Russified school program. As a youth, he wrote some poetry, including a drama, Cheops (1903). A poem of his, "Do Prometeusza" ("To Prometheus"), was included in a 1900 anthology; however, neither he in later life, nor literary critics, judged his poetry outstanding.

He entered the Imperial University of Warsaw in 1902, but was soon expelled after taking part in protests against the Russian administration's curtailment of student rights. Threatened with conscription into the Imperial Russian Army, he chose to emigrate, and in early 1904 he left Warsaw for Switzerland.

During that period, he was briefly an editor at a French-language literary magazine, Nice Illustrée (late 1904 – early 1905); faked his own death; briefly served in the French Foreign Legion in Algeria; and worked at a flea market, on a farm, in a traveling circus,  and as a librarian at the Polish Museum in Rapperswil, Switzerland.

In Switzerland, he soon resumed his university studies, first at the University of Geneva (1905–1907), then at the University of Zurich (1907–1908), eventually transferring to the Sorbonne in Paris, France (1908–1909), where he attended lectures by sociologist Émile Durkheim. In 1909, after the death of his supervisor Frédéric Rauh, he returned to Poland, where in 1910 he obtained his PhD degree at Jagiellonian University, in Kraków, under a new supervisor, Maurycy Straszewski.

Early Polish career
That year he also joined the Polish Psychological Society, in which he would be highly active over the next few years, becoming its vice president in 1913–1914. Much of his early academic work at that time could be classified as philosophy. In 1909, aged 27, he published his first academic paper, Etyka filozoficzna i nauka o wartościach moralnych ("Philosophical Ethics and the Science of Moral Values"); a year later, he published Zagadnienie wartości w filozofii (The Question of Values in Philosophy), based on his doctoral dissertation, and a paper, Myśl i rzeczywistosc ("Mind and Reality"). In 1912, he published a new book, Humanizm i Poznanie (Humanism and Knowledge), and a paper, Elementy rzeczywistości praktycznej ("Elements of Practical Reality"). A year later, he published an annotated translation of Henri Bergson's Creative Evolution and a paper, Znaczenie rozwoju świata i człowieka ("The Meaning of World and Human Development"). The year 1914 saw the publication of his papers, Formy i zasady twórczości moralnej ("Forms and Principles of Moral Creativity") and Zasada względności jako podstawa filozofii ("The Principle of Relativity as a Foundation of Philosophy"). His works, published in Polish, were well received by the Polish scholarly community and intelligentsia.

Due to his past political activism, he was unable to secure a post at a major university. From 1912 to 1914, he lectured at a novel women's institution of higher education, the Advanced Pedagogical Courses for Women. During his studies, he had worked at several European institutions dealing with Polish immigrants; he would build on his experiences by becoming involved with the Warsaw-based Society for the Welfare of Émigrés (Towarzystwo Opieki nad Wychodźcami), where he worked in 1910–1914. By 1911, he was the Society's director and (1911–1912) editor of its journal, Wychodźca Polski (The Polish Émigré). Znaniecki became an expert on Polish migration, in 1914 authoring for the government a 500-page report, Wychodźtwo Sezonowe (Seasonal Migration).

Work with Thomas
A year earlier, in 1913, Znaniecki had met William I. Thomas, an American sociologist who had come to Poland in connection with his research on Polish immigrants in the United States. Thomas and Znaniecki had begun to collaborate, and soon Thomas invited Znaniecki to come to Chicago to continue work with him in the United States. In July 1914, just on the eve of World War I, Znaniecki left Poland to work with Thomas as a research assistant. From 1917 to 1919, Znaniecki also lectured in sociology at the University of Chicago.

Their work culminated in co-authoring of The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1918–1920), considered a sociology classic. It was his collaboration with Thomas that marked the transition in Znaniecki's career from philosopher to sociologist. Znaniecki stayed with Thomas in Chicago until mid-1919, when he moved to New York, following Thomas, who had lost his job at Chicago due to a spurious scandal.

That year Znaniecki published a new book, still mostly philosophical rather than sociological, Cultural Reality. Published in English, it was a synthesis of his philosophical thought. In New York, Thomas and Znaniecki carried on research for the Carnegie Corporation on the process of immigrant Americanization. Znaniecki contributed to Thomas' book, Old World Traits Transplanted, and published an anonymous solicited article on that topic in the February 1920 Atlantic Monthly.

Founding Polish sociology
Poland had regained independence in 1918, following World War I. In 1919, Znaniecki contacted the newly founded Ministry of Religious Affairs and Public Education, offering to return to Poland if the Ministry could help him secure a chair at a Polish university. He proposed creating a novel Institute of Sociology, but bureaucracy and communication delays resulted in that idea being shelved, and he was offered a philosophy professorship at the newly organized Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań.

In 1920, Znaniecki returned to the newly established Second Polish Republic, where at Poznań University he soon became Poland's first chair in sociology. He accomplished this by renaming the department, originally "Third Philosophical Department", to "Department of Sociology and Cultural Philosophy", doing the same for his chair, and establishing a Sociological Seminary. That same year he also founded the Polish Institute of Sociology (Polski Instytut Socjologiczny), the fifth-oldest sociological institute in Europe.

In 1927, his department was officially renamed to "department of sociology", and in 1930, the department gained authorization to issue degrees in sociology. Also in 1930, the Polish Institute of Sociology began publishing the first Polish sociological journal, Przegląd Socjologiczny (The Sociological Review), with Znaniecki its chief editor from 1930 to 1939. That year, the Institute organized Poland's first academic sociologists' conference. Due to his role as founder of so many of its building blocks, Znaniecki is considered as one of the fathers of sociology in Poland.

Later U.S. career
Keeping in touch with American sociologists, Znaniecki lectured as a visiting professor at Columbia University in New York City in 1932–34 and during the summer of 1939. That summer ended the Polish stage of his career, as the invasion of Poland and the start of World War II prevented his return to Poland. He was already aboard a ship bound for Poland when his travel was cut short in the United Kingdom. He still briefly considered returning to Poland, where his wife and daughter remained; however, faced with the occupation, he returned to the United States in 1940. His wife and daughter, after briefly being imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp, joined him.

With help from American colleagues, Znaniecki obtained an extension of his appointment at Columbia University through mid-1940. He then moved to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and in 1942, obtained American citizenship, allowing him to transition from a visiting to a regular professorship. He taught at the University of Illinois until his retirement, deciding not to return to the communist Polish People's Republic, established in the aftermath of World War II, despite the offer of a chair at Poznań University. In 1950, he retired, becoming a professor emeritus.

He was 44th President of the American Sociological Association (for 1954). His presidential address, "Basic Problems of Contemporary Sociology," was delivered on September 8, 1954 at the Association's annual meeting and was later published in the American Sociological Review.

He died on March 23, 1958 in Champaign, Illinois. The cause of death was arteriosclerosis. His funeral took place on March 26, and he was buried at Roselawn Champaign Cemetery.

Family
In 1906, Znaniecki married a fellow Polish student at the University of Geneva, Emilia Szwejkowska. They had a son, poet and writer Juliusz Znaniecki, born in 1908. Emilia died in 1915.

The next year, Znaniecki married Eileen Markley (1886–1976). They had one daughter, sociologist Helena Znaniecki Lopata, born in 1925.

Importance
Polish sociologist and historian of ideas Jerzy Szacki writes that Znaniecki's major contributions include: the founding of sociology in Poland; his work in empirical sociology; and his work in sociological theory. Szacki notes that Znaniecki sought to bridge a number of gaps: between empirical sociology and more theoretical approaches; between objectivity and subjectivity; between humanistic and naturalistic methodologies and viewpoints; and between American and European intellectual traditions.

Szacki writes that, while Znaniecki's theoretical contributions were subsequently pushed into the background by Talcott Parsons' "functionalism", Znaniecki offered the most ambitious sociological theory known to America before Parsons.

Znaniecki's most famous work remains The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1918–1920), co-authored with William I. Thomas. His other major works include Wstęp do socjologii (An Introduction to Sociology, 1922), The Method of Sociology (1934), Social Actions (1936), The Social Role of the Man of Knowledge (1940) and Cultural Sciences (1952).

Empirical sociology
Znaniecki's contributions to empirical sociology began after, and were influenced by, his collaboration with William I. Thomas. The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1918–1920), a five-volume work which he wrote with Thomas, is considered a classic of empirical sociology. It is a study of Polish immigrants to America, based on personal documents. The work became a landmark study of Americanization — of how new immigrants to the United States "become Americans".

This work represents Znaniecki's most valued contribution to empirical sociology. Most of his other works focused on theory, the only other notable exception being Miasto w świadomości jego obywateli (The City in the Consciousness of its Citizens, 1931).

Sociology: theory and definition
A key element of Znaniecki's sociological theory is his view of sociology in particular, and of the social sciences in general, as a scientific field uniquely different from the natural sciences. Znaniecki defines sociology as a study of social actions. His recommended methodology was analytic induction: analysis of typical case studies, and generalization from them.

Znaniecki's theories form a major part of sociology's action theory, and his work is a major part of the foundation of humanistic sociology. Another term connected with Znaniecki's theories is "systematic sociology" ("socjologia systematyczna"). He sought to create a grand sociological theory, one that would bridge the gap between empirical sociology and more theoretical approaches.

Znaniecki criticized the widespread definition of sociology as the study of society. In Znaniecki's culturalist perspective, sociology is a study of culture (though it is not the study of culture, as Znaniecki recognized that other social sciences also study culture). His definition of sociology has been described as that of "a cultural science whose function is to study systems of social interaction based upon patterns of values and norms of behaviour, through the use of the humanistic coefficient", or more simply, "the investigation of organized, interdependent interaction among human beings." The part of the culture that sociology focused on was that of social relation or interaction.

Znaniecki saw culture as a field separate from nature, but also from individuals' perceptions. The essence of culture is socially constructed objects. He was one of the first sociologists to begin analyzing personal documents such as letters, autobiographies, diaries, and the like. He considered the analysis of such documents an important part of the humanistic-coefficient method.

Znaniecki saw sociology as an objective, inductive and generalizing science. According to Szacki, Znaniecki viewed sociology as a nomothetic science that should be able to use a methodology similar to that of the natural sciences (however, Znaniecki's daughter Helena Znaniecki Lopata, in her introduction to Social Relations and Social Roles, contradicts Szacki, writing that, for Znaniecki, sociology was a science "whose subject matter calls for a method different from that of the natural sciences." ). In 1934 he formulated the principle of analytic induction, designed to identify universal propositions and causal laws. He contrasted it with enumerative research, which provided mere correlations and could not account for exceptions in statistical relationships. He was also critical of the statistical method, which he did not see as very useful.

In addition to the science of sociology, Znaniecki was also deeply interested in the larger field of the sociology of science. He analyzed the social roles of scientists, and the concept of a school of thought.

Four social systems
According to Znaniecki, sociology can be divided into the study of four dynamic social systems: social action theory, social relation theory, social actors theory, and social groups theory. Znaniecki saw social actions as the foundation of a society, as they give rise to more complex social relations, and he saw this theory as the foundation of all the others. Unlike Max Weber, he did not believe that everything can be reduced to social actions; he was also quite skeptical of any insights coming from the science of psychology, which he held in low esteem.

The four major forms of cooperative interaction, or four social systems, in growing complexity, were:
 * social actions (in Polish, "czyny społeczne" or "czynności społeczne"): the most basic type of social fact;
 * social relations (in Polish, "stosunki społeczne"): these require at least two persons and a mutual obligation; the study of social relations is the study of norms regulating social actions;
 * social personalities (in Polish, "osoby społeczne" or "osobowości społeczne"): the combined picture that emerges from a number of different social roles that an individual has;
 * social group (in Polish, "grupa społeczna"): any group which is recognized by some as a separate entity; Znaniecki saw a society as a group of groups, but denied it primacy as an area that the sociologist should focus on (while at the same time recognizing that most sociologists differed on this).

The four-category division described above appeared in his 1934 book, The Method of Sociology. By 1958 he had reformulated the division, and was speaking instead of social relations, social roles, social groups, and societies.

Sociology of culture
Znaniecki coined the term "humanistic coefficient" for a method of social research by way of data analysis that emphasizes participants' perceptions of the experience being analyzed. The humanistic coefficient sees all social facts as being created by social actors and as being understandable only from their perspective. Thus the sociologist ought to study reality by trying to understand how others see the world, not (objectively) as an independent observer; in other words, the scientist needs to understand the subject's world. While some have criticized this approach as being too close to subjectivism, Znaniecki himself saw it as anti-subjectivist; he observed that social facts such as cultural systems can exist even if no one perceives their existence. He was also skeptical of any value coming from personal, subjective observations, arguing that such observations have value only if they can be objectively described. He argued that the difference between the natural and social sciences lies not in the difference between objective and subjective experiences, but in the subject being studied: for Znaniecki, the natural sciences studied things, and the social sciences studied cultural values.

Znaniecki characterized the world as being caught within two contrary modes of reflection; idealism and realism. He proposed a third way, which he called "culturalism". His culturalism was one of the founding ideas of modern antipositivist and antinaturalist sociology. The term "culturalism" was introduced into English in his book, Cultural Reality (1919), and was translated into Polish as "kulturalizm"; previously Znaniecki had discussed the concept in Polish as "humanism" ("humanizm").

Elżbieta Hałas has insisted on a gradual evolution of Znaniecki's sociology of culture from Cultural Reality to Cultural Sciences, his most reviewed book, which was published more than thirty years later, in 1952. By that time, Znaniecki saw the cultural order as "axionormative", a universal concept encompassing “relationships among all kind of human actions” and the corresponding values. Hałas noted that this approach put him at odds with what was the dominant approach of the sociology of culture in the 1950s, whose most authoritative exponents were Americans who regarded Znaniecki's approach as typically European and hardly applicable to the analysis of culture in the United States.

Other themes
Znaniecki's work also touched on many other areas of sociology, such as intergroup conflict, urban sociology, and rural sociology.

Works
Znaniecki's first academic works, of the 1910s, were more philosophical than sociological in nature; beginning in the 1920s, his works were primarily sociological. His Cultural Reality (1919) was a synthesis of his philosophical thought, but the simultaneous publication of his much more popular The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (1918–1920) associated his name in academic circles primarily with sociology rather than with philosophy. His early works focused on analysis of culture and strongly criticized the principles of sociological naturalism. Szacki notes a puzzling gap in Znaniecki's research: while he was well-read in, and engaged with, most previous and current theories, he largely ignored the works of some notable sociologists of his time such as Max Weber, Vilfredo Pareto and Talcott Parsons. On the other hand, his works engaged closely with those of William I. Thomas, Georg Simmel, Robert E. Park, and Émile Durkheim.

His The Method of Sociology first introduced his concept of divisions within subfields of sociology. His most notable works included two books published in the same year (1952): Modern Nationalities, and Cultural Sciences. The former is an analysis of the evolution of national-culture societies, and the latter presents a theoretical study of the relation between sociology and other sciences. Znaniecki never finished his magnum opus, Systematic Sociology, which would eventually be collected and published posthumously in its unfinished but final form as Social Relations and Social Roles: The Unfinished Systematic Sociology (1965).

List of works
Roughly half of Znaniecki's published works are in English; the rest are in Polish.

In English:
 * Books

 * Articles

In Polish:
 * Zagadnienie wartości w filozofii (The Question of Value in Philosophy), Warsaw, 1910.
 * Humanizm i poznanie (Humanism and Knowledge), Warsaw, 1912.
 * Upadek cywilizacji zachodniej: Szkic z pogranicza filozofii kultury i socjologii (The Decline of Western Civilization: A Sketch from the Interface of Cultural Philosophy and Sociology), Poznań, 1921.
 * Wstęp do socjologii (An Introduction to Sociology), Poznań, 1922.
 * Socjologia wychowania (The Sociology of Education), Warsaw (vol. I: 1928; vol. II: 1930).
 * Miasto w świadomości jego obywateli (The City in the Consciousness of Its Citizens), Poznań, 1931.
 * Ludzie teraźniejsi a cywilizacja przyszłości (Contemporary People and the Civilization of the Future), Lwów, 1934.
 * Ludzie teraźniejsi a cywilizacja przyszłości (Contemporary People and the Civilization of the Future), Lwów, 1934.

title: Florian Znaniecki


text:
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/VeryVerily and Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas/Request

Request mediation with VeryVerily regarding his reversion practice on various articles including George W. Bush and Henry Kissinger. Gzornenplatz 04:46, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Second the request. Kevin Baas | talk 18:28, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

 * I'd be willing to give it a try. However, I strongly doubt Gz's motives.  I believe he is not interested in mediation and is making this request solely to "technically" satisfy the requirement of trying mediation before initiating an arbitration request.  This is analogous to his previous action of leaving me a note on my Talk page to satisfy the requirement that two people must contact a user before starting an RfC (see ).  I offer in support of this theory his statements on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration that he believes mediation would be fruitless  .  It seems unlikely mediation can succeed when one party does not especially wish it to. V V  03:40, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * I openly admit that I consider mediation futile, because you have previously demonstrated your complete obstinacy on this question whenever I talked to you about it (and I don't see what the interpolation of a mediator should change about it). But if you want to change your immovable stance now, great. If you don't think I wish this to succeed, what do you think I wish? I wish this question resolved, by one method or the other. If mediation does it, fine. If not, arbitration is needed. Gzornenplatz 10:14, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

 * Once again, there's the curious claim that I am the obstinate one, but I see other obstinate people here. But the point is that mediation has little hope if one party has a vested interest in it failing, and your prediction of "futility" will be self-fulfilling. V V  19:14, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Once again, I have no "vested interest" in it failing, I'm just afraid it is doomed to fail because of your previously stated determination to continue reverting, which I therefore believe only an arbitration decision can end. Gzornenplatz 19:46, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * So the sooner arbitration starts, the better? So the sooner this mediation business is over and declared a failure, the better?  Is that how you see it?  If so, it seems you have an interest in it failing.  (Recall that mediation might require that you give a little, which you have been wholly unwilling to do.) V V  19:56, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The sooner you stop reverting, the better. That's how I see it. I don't see what I can possibly give here, this is solely about your behaviour. I am already showing considerable restraint in reverting. Would you prefer I behave like you and reflexively revert, ensuring permanent page protection? Gzornenplatz 20:01, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * No, I am suggesting mediation is unlikely to work, because your heart won't be in it. V V 20:07, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * And I don't think yours will be. That's why I tried arbitration right away. But it's your choice now. Do you want to try mediation anyway, or shall we let it go to arbitration? Gzornenplatz 20:11, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't my heart be in it? Do you think I want to burden the ArbCom with this frivolous scrap? V V  20:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Since you say you have no problem with the wording I propose, why don't you give it a rest? I know you think you're defending a "principle" - that if a passage is preferred by editors 5-3, then it becomes forever unalterable until a further vote goes another way.  That is at the very least un-wiki-like, and if you read Survey guidelines, you'll see polls are non-binding, only for limited purposes, and "supposed" to be implemented much unlike they were in this case. V V  20:12, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * This is not particularly about polls (though I may remind you that in one case the vote was 20-3 against you). It's about trying to force your way by reverting, which is what is un-wiki-like here. And if you read Three revert rule, you'll see that it's simply against policy. Gzornenplatz 20:24, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * As I have said a thousand times, that poll was on an unrelated issue (how much detail to have in the popularity section). As for forcing my way by reverting, that is what the other side is doing, and so I must too to keep up.  Other methods have proven ineffective every time I have tried them, including enforcing the 3RR. V V  20:34, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Ineffective for what? Any attempt of yours to install a specific version against the prevailing talk page opinion is supposed to be ineffective. The 3RR applies to everyone else too. If everyone adheres to it, and you can't get your way because you're outnumbered by people favouring a different version, then all you can do is try and convince more people of your position on the talk page. Gzornenplatz 20:42, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

 * As I understand it, Gzornenplatz favors this version:
 * The validity of the Florida vote was heavily disputed and contested. Due to problems with voting equipment on Election Day, a manual recount was begun in several counties. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing. The Florida Supreme Court allowed the recount to continue, but in mid-December the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the recounts must be stopped. After this, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by some, though no longer contested in any legal venue. (See U.S. presidential election, 2000).
 * And VeryVerily favors this version:
 * The Florida vote, which favored Bush by a tiny margin in the initial count, was heavily contested due to concerns about flaws and irregularities in the voting process, and became the subject of a series of contentious court cases. After a U.S. Supreme Court decision in mid-December favoring Bush, Gore conceded the election. The election results are still disputed by many, though no longer contested in any legal venue. See U.S. presidential election, 2000.
 * Would this version be acceptable to both of you?
 * The Florida vote was heavily disputed. While initially favoring Bush by a tiny margin in the initial count, a manual recount was begun in several counties due to concerns about flaws and irregularities in the voting process. The Bush campaign sued to stop the recount from continuing; after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the recounts must be stopped, Gore conceded the election. See U.S. presidential election, 2000.
 * [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]]14:07, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. The version I favor is the one you state above that Gz favors. V V  03:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You're right. Fixed. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 04:03, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, both VV and Rex prefer the version purported to be favored by VV. The version purported to be favored by Gz is favored by Neutrality, Gz, Iainscott, StellarFury, and Lyellin.  (See Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_11 for evidence.)

To date, I have seldom agreed with Neutrality, but on this point he is correct - when he states: "I'd prefer if mediation is actually given a chance here...". Gzornenplatz's comment of "I'm just playing along with the bureaucratic rigmarole" is totally out of line an anathema to collegial editing. Rex071404 03:23, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * This is not at all about what version of the article I prefer (I agree in part with VeryVerily's), it is strictly about his behaviour. No matter how right his version may be, he can't just keep reverting (and without even an edit summary!) to force his way when most people favour different versions, as the polls have shown. This will just lead to constant page protections. Gzornenplatz 15:29, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Nobody can stop VV from reverting except himself, ArbCom, and Jimbo. That's not what mediation is for. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, except that when I requested arbitration, they rejected it, saying mediation has not been tried first! I know mediation is futile here, I'm just playing along with the bureaucratic rigmarole. Gzornenplatz 16:12, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer if mediation is actually given a chance here, rather than dismissed. Let's wait for VV to respond, and see if he would like to go through mediation. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 16:47, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Now you're contradicting yourself. You just said this is not what mediation is for. Gzornenplatz 16:51, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

In the end, it's your call. If you both still wish to proceed with mediation, do either of you have any preferences for a mediator? Ambi 06:31, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * There are a number of mediators who should be recused, as they have already been involved, attempting to negotiate/mediate informally. Beyond that, I currently don't have criteria.  I'll list them when i have more time.  Beyond this, i'd be happy with whatever gz and vv are happy with. Kevin Baas | talk 20:51, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Take your pick:
 * Angela
 * Anthere
 * Bcorr
 * Cimon Avaro
 * Dante Alighieri
 * Ed Poor
 * llywrch
 * moink
 * sannse
 * Stevertigo
 * TUF-KAT

Hmmmm, I haven't seen cimon, dante, llywch, or moink. How 'bout one of those, with preference in alphabetical order? Kevin Baas | talk 00:52, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

I have no preference. Gzornenplatz 11:16, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

BCorr is willing to mediate I am willing to mediate this dispute if I am an acceptable choice. Kevin and VeryVerily, please indicate if I am an acceptable choice. If not, please indicate specifically who would be, and we can begin.

Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 14:22, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry Bcorr, nothing personal: I want someone completely new to the dispute to mediate, to get a fresh perspective. Thanks for offering.  If I had to pick a specific mediator, I'd go with Cimon, because he's first in alphabetical order. (btw, you failed to mention Gzornenplatz, who initiated this RfM.) Kevin Baas | talk 14:29, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

 * This seems like a pretty frivolous reason to reject someone's offer to mediate. V V 16:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks for offering. I don't have a problem with you as a choice, or indeed with most of the other ones named. My misgiving remains that Gz has no interest in mediation, wishing only to pretend to do it to induce arbitration, and so he will not actually try to make it work. V V 14:32, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I said I have no preference, I'm OK with Bcorr or anyone else. Let's just get on with it. Gzornenplatz 14:33, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, I've asked Cimon Avaro to let you know if that's possible. And BTW, I did leave Gzornenplatz a note, but since he'd already said above that he had no preference, I didn't think it was necessary to mention him by name. Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 15:56, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * I would prefer the first available mediator among those I have listed. Kevin Baas | talk 00:43, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC)

 * I've now asked Dante (he's next on your list). Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 19:17, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Is this request even still "active"? Gzornenplatz has posted an RFAr all the while.  And the conflicts on the two articles noted have largely settled down. V V  23:27, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * We're just trying to do our due diligence with this case, and so far, no one has said that it should be ended, and there is still the outstanding request from Kevin, If you decline mediation, or Kevin and Gzorenplatz say that mediation has ended, we would be happy to archive the case BCorr | Брайен 00:38, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri is willing to mediate I'm certainly willing to offer my services. It DOES seem from my brief review of the above that my services may no longer be required, as it doesn't seem to ME that this is an active issue. Nevertheless, should I be wrong, I'm ready to take up the issue assuming I'm acceptable to all parties. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 05:44, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * Who's even involved in this now? Gzornenplatz, who initiated it, has had no input here in weeks. V V  09:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * To answer the implicit question, there has been a new flare-up, but the issue that started this has died down. To be sure, mediation might not be uncalled for in the newest case, especially since I perceive stalking behavior in Gzornenplatz which has its roots in the above-noted conflict, but the phony claims of "consensus", so pivotal to Gz and Kb's righteousness attacks on me before and thus the justification for arbitration against me (Gz's actual goal), can't possibly be appealed to in the latest conflict. V V  10:06, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * What further "input" should I have had in the last weeks? I'm waiting for mediation to start. And the issue, which is your behaviour, has not at all died down. This was never about the content of any particular article. Gzornenplatz 12:06, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

 * Let the mediation (which is not about article content) go on! Kevin Baas | talk 13:21, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

 * Fine. My only reservation is that I don't know much about Dante Alighieri.  I have seen the name around here for quite some time, but don't really remember in what context.  Perhaps I should ask DA if he/she has any predispositions towards any of us coming into this? V V  00:00, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, rather than waiting until you ask, I'll just jump the gun and answer. :) I have no predispositions to any of the parties. In fact, the only name I recognize is yours, Verily, and only because you've made enough edits that your name pops up often enough that I've run across it. Hope that lays your mind to rest. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:36, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * Not entirely, but it will suffice. I hope you understand why I have to ask and don't take it the wrong way; many people here do know me (or the other parties), and I don't know this till they materialize somewhere and talk about me, positively or negatively.  In any case, I recall now we had a small conversation on User talk about whether some user was a sockpuppet of Michael or not. V V  23:37, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * This sounds like all three parties agree to mediation, and that it isn't conditional on VeryVerily's reservations about Dante. I encourage VV to ask Dante Alighieri (Dante's talk page) any questions, and to move forward with mediation immediately. Thanks, BCorr | Брайен 13:22, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mediation Begins?
It seems as though Mediation is about to proceed. Given that, I've found it helpful in the past for the parties involved to list methods that they are comfortable with using to achieve mediation, as well as times that they are available.

I prefer something real-time as it is easiest for me to communicate that way. The downside is, of course, that everyone needs to be available at the same time. IRC or an instant messenger client chat room would be the way to go if that is what is desired.

Alternatively, there's the pseudo-realtime of Wikipedia. Edit conflicts aside, people can post relatively quickly in response to each other but it does allow more time for reflection and does not NEED everyone there all the time. The Wikipedia mediation bulletin board is also an option, and in some ways preferable as there's no chance of edit conflicts or editing of other users' words accidently or otherwise.

Thirdly, there's email. This is my least preferred as it can take ages and ages (OK, hours and hours) to have a straightforward conversation and minimizes the ability for quick response.

I'm open to other suggestions, but let's start with these as that's all I can think of at the moment. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:36, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * This is a matter of Wikipedia so there is no other place to do this but here on Wikipedia. Gzornenplatz 17:48, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * A bizarre argument. If we're arguing over who owns a car, do the legal proceedings have to take place in the car? V V  23:40, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * A bizarre analogy. A dispute over a car would be a legal matter, and the only place to deal with it would be in a court of law. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved on Wikipedia. Gzornenplatz 23:52, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * An incorrect analysis. And an empirically wrong claim, as many disputes are resolved off-site. V V  23:55, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * A great exaggeration. And the fact that some disputes are discussed off-site doesn't make it any more proper. I'm not going to discuss off-site where no records are left, which would just invite lies and misrepresentations later if mediation fails. If it fails, I want it to be clear for everyone to see who was at fault. Gzornenplatz 00:07, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to anything real-time. Sorry.  I have no opinion between the other suggested methods. V V  23:38, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * How about the message board? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 23:45, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I've yet to hear from Kevin, but what do you two (VV and Gzorn) think about the message boards? Neutrality thoughtfully included a link above. This has the advantage of not being realtime and also leaves a "paper trail" so to speak. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:45, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't see what's the advantage there compared to a wiki page. I have no confidence that threads there will not be deleted. Gzornenplatz 18:21, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, to my knowledge only the Chair(s) of the Mediation Committee have the ability to delete threads... So, I suppose it comes down to whether you trust them or not; but if you don't trust the MC, why are you participating in Mediation? I could give you my word that I'll make sure that the thread doesn't get deleted... would that help? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:01, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't know the Mediation Committee enough, but judging from the nonsense I've seen from the Arbitration Committee, I don't think I should blindly trust this committee either. And that's precisely why I want a completely open process, so that I don't have to trust it. As I said earlier, I don't expect mediation to achieve much here, I'm just participating in it because it seems to be a required step in the process leading to arbitration, which I'm afraid will be required here (though I would be happy to be proven wrong on this). Gzornenplatz 09:15, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm off to Reno for the weekend (back Monday Oct. 11), hopefully people will be able to some sort of consensus. For the record, I still suggest either the 'pedia or else the Mediation bulletin board. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:01, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

 * Unless you see an advantage to the bulletin board, I don't see the point in trying to adapt to Gz's objections. Very Verily 09:21, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Let me clue VV in on "the point in trying to address adapt to Gz's objections.": The current step in the mediation process is: reach consensus on a medium for mediation that addresses the concerns of all parties involved.  Since Gz is an involved party, the point of trying to "adapt to [his] objections" is to complete this step in the process.

 * I would also prefer transparency, for reasons more of having a record and the principle of it than trust. I'd also prefer a medium that is quick, because I don't want this dispute to drag out.  My last experience with mediation went at a snail's pace when it went at all, leaving the dispute unresolved for a long time.  I would like to resolve this dispute in a timely manner.

 * BTW, if I'm gone for some time, Gz can represent me. I'm going to be at a Wedding over the weekend.  Thanks. Kevin Baas | talk 17:31, 2004 Oct 8 (UTC)

 * Are you just being deliberately dense? Can you really not understand a simple English sentence? Very Verily  22:41, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as Gz is objecting to thse use of the message boards, I suggest that a page be created with which the mediation process can be started. I think that creating a subpage here, VeryVerily and Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas (and possibly moving this lengthy discussion there) would be a good start whilst Dante and Kevin are away. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:03, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)

 * I agree to this step. Kevin Baas | talk 13:59, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)