Talk:Burning Man/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Burning Man. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Links cont, proposed rewrite & Theme camps

don't miss conversation leading to this in Archive02

I think really what this article needs is to be rewritten with sourcing/proper wikipedia footnotes, at which time some of the current external links could be integrated into article as sources, thus necessitating a smaller external links section overall. Maybe we could actually get featured article status at that point, too. It would nice to have a fully FA-quality article in any case, regardless of whether it is eventually picked.

At this point my inclination is to leave the Links section as it currently stands, pending this future rewrite. I think that I could get to it eventually, when I finish my current projects. I do still think we need to police additions to the section to keep it from overwhelming the article itself.

Also, while we're brainstorming -- one thing the recent links controversy reminded me is that the treatment of theme camps on this article and in wikipedia in general is lacking. I think eventually this article should spawn a full fledged Theme camps article. Thoughts? Kit 04:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

What about starting a Theme Camp section within the article and then when there's enough for a stub, copy the text to a separate page, and then start a links section for theme camps. Even though there only needs to be a link to http://www.burningman.com/themecamps/ in order to get to all the camps' sites, I think it would still be of value to have links to individual camps from that page. Maybe even a paragraph each for reoccurring camps and popular camps from last year.

What kinds of sources and footnotes did you have mind? Are there any academic papers or articles in sociological journals about Burning Man?

MarXidad 02:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Your suggestion for starting a theme camp article spawning off from Burning Man first as a subsection and eventually as a complete article, with a little link in this article saying (Main Article: see Theme camps). I would prefer that we link mostly to theme camps from within the article itself and minimize the links on the External links section. Ideally, it would be more than just a list of theme camps. Rather than listing theme camps, we should talk about what a theme camp does, give examples of services that some of the major camps run, talk about the planning, expenses, and fund raising that go into theme camps, and so on. While doing that we would certainly write about a number of specific camps but I'd like to avoid making a directory of theme camps out of an encyclopedia article.

As to sources there are a number of newspaper and journalistic articles we can link to, as well as the plethora of survival materials on the official website. There might be some links to personal sites or unofficial burning man pages too, where we couldn't find something else. Sources can be appropriate to the topic at hand -- for an article about chemistry we would want academic papers, but we don't need them here. Although I don't doubt that there are academic papers about Bman and I am sure we can link to those if they are online. Kit 04:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Not to be needlessly contrarian (I hope), but a case could be made for an independent theme-camp article, since many theme camps have an existence outside of Burning Man, that is, the same theme camp may appear at the big burn, a regional burn, and may exist as a cohesive community during the rest of the year. adamrice 19:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Other related pages Burner_(Burning_Man), Black Rock City, Black Rock City Ranger (should have their own section in 'health and safety'), Art Car (exists, further linked). Theme camp (singular or plural?) should definitely evolve into its own page. Seems fine to me to begin that process with a section on this page. The current Table of Contents really isn't so bad... I'd say dive in MarX, go for a theme camp section, Kit references?, I'm going to edit regional events a bit and try to find images for David_Best's temples.

∴ here…♠ 19:36, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I think we should start Category:Burning Man to cover all of these related pages. Also, perhaps we should look into starting a wikipedia project to cover Burning Man related articles.

I already created Black Rock City, NV as a Redirect to this article pending creation of a full article. I suppose Black Rock City should be a redirect either to Black Rock City, NV or be a disambiguation page as there are other Black Rock-named towns in the country according to a search of the 'pedia.

I am definitely interested in writing the Theme camp section (singular is probably better) as I am going to be helping to run one at Burning Flipside next year and it seems like the research would probably turn up stuff useful to me. Of course I would be happy to collaborate with MarXidad on it. I will take a look at sources for Burning Man too.

I have a concern about the use of images of Burning Man and taken at Burning Man, but I will start a new section for the discussion of it. It seems like the Links controversy has died down for now, how long should we wait to archive the first, lengthy Links category on this page? Kit 20:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Images of/at Burning Man

This official Bman page states that: "Commercial use of all imagery taken at Burning Man is forbidden without express permission. All professional photographers with intent to receive compensation for a Burning Man image (including editorial or gallery) must check in at Media Mecca. Pre- or post-event, photographers should register at www.burningman.com/press, contact the hotline, or write press (at) burningman (dot) com for permission."

We need to make sure that the creator of any images we use in Wikipedia has registered as a commercial user for the event where they took the photo, otherwise while we may or may not be violating the law we are certainly violating the rules of the event. We should, in my opinion, contact the creator of the picture now in use and make sure they obtained this permission. The same would go for any photos we add to this or other articles.

Oops that was by me. Kit 20:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I am yet to become well versed in the copyright issues here at wikipedia, nor am I overly familiar with BRC's policy. It does seem that this is an issue with BRC LLC, as they would have to approve this potentially commercial use. It's maybe worthwhile to contact press@burningman Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission requesting permission to use authorized photos in wikimedia projects. ∴ here…♠ 22:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you think it makes sense to try and find new photos one of the editors owns the copyright on and ask about those, or should we try to obtain permission to keep using the existing pictures? I would think new photos would be easier but I also don't want to be accused of vanity for suggesting one of my own. :) I think it would be best if the pictures do not picture anything and it would probably be best to pick out the photos we want and ask permission to use them from BMorg as a group.

If new photos, we want one or more of the man (sculpture and burning) and ideally one of each of the Temples, esp. David Best's for his article but a picture of this year's temple would potentially be good for the article. Other incidental shots are OK but we should make sure that no person is pictured in them both for our purposes and to increase the chance that we will get permission to open license the shots.

I suppose it might also be good to ask BMorg to provide pictures if they don't want ours used.Kit 20:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I contact User:Ali-oops on their Talk page because it appears they took Image:neonman.jpg. It is quite possible that the event was not as restrictive about photos in 1999 even if this user did not have special media permission. I'll keep updating here as I find out more.

The Burning Man photo restriction does not apply here, as the restriction is a covenant between the person who took the pictures and Burning Man management. Wikipedia is not a party to that contract and thus it does not apply. I'm certain that BRC LLC would love to think that they can exercise complete control over all photographs taken at Burning Man, but the fact of the matter is that they do not own the copyrights to those photos, and the enforceability of the photo use restriction section of the Burning Man contract is highly dubious. I would definitely suggest NOT contacting BRC LLC regarding these photographs as that would seem to be implying that we are under the impression that they have any say over how we use photos that they do not hold the copyright to. It is my considered opinion that any photographs taken at Burning Man can be used on Wikipedia, provided the photographer releases them under a license which is acceptable to Wikipedia. Nohat 05:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

On principle, and the assumption that Bmorg is not evil, I think contact is warrented. I have no trouble ignoring rules when appropriate, but I just don't see the point here. I imagine they would be supportive, if anything? ∴ here…♠ 07:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, those restrictions were *not* in place when I took the above pic way back then. I certainly didn't sign anything waiving my rights to copyright of works or anything like that. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with on this one. The fact that BMorg now appear to be so restrictive on such matters is just annoying & certainly not in the spirit of things - Ali-oops ^✍ 07:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I think, personally, that trying to limit commercial use of images taken at the event is certainly in keeping with the 'no vendor' spirit of the event. The goal seems to be to prevent excessive commercial exploitation of the event and to keep Bman out of stock photography collections where it could be then incorporated into advertisements. I, for one, would cringe if there was some advertisement with the slogan "For everywhere you want to be, there's Mastercard." and a picture of the Gerlach general store and a Man going up in flames or something.

In any case, to respond to Nohat, I have already been in touch with Burning Man (see the last entry on this page). I would prefer that if any images from the event are used they either predate the photography restrictions or have been approved by the Bman media team. Even if the BMorg technically has no legal right to enforce this clause, I would prefer to see Wikipedia be a good online citizen by respecting this restriction and the group which imposed it. Kit 19:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Category: Burning Man

I have created Category:Burning Man and I am going to write up some text for it. I added all the articles I knew of that should be added, but feel free to add any others you think belong -- please limit them to things actually specific to Burning Man though, not just attended by many Burners (so don't add it to the X-Day article for instance). I added it to David Best but was unsure whether I should add it to Art car. Thoughts? Other things that belong in the cat?

As per Wikipedia:Categorization, I removed Category:Religious festivals, Category:Cultural festivals, Category:Ticketed festivals from this article and made Category:Burning Man a subcategory of those three instead. The policy suggests this article should not be both in its category (Bman) and that category's parent categories. Kit 20:47, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Art Cars, no. I could be convinced otherwise on this one, but the article barely mentions burning man. I'd say the transportation section in the burning man article could include more about art cars at burning man.
Green Tortoise, remove. The green tortoise is not a burning man organization. They happen to run two busses there once a year, but otherwise are focused on running their hostels and busses.

∴ here…♠ 21:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed Green Tortoise. We can use Category_talk:Burning Man for further discussion of what should or should not be included. I'd love your thoughts on the Pictures discussion above and my most recent thoughts in the second Links discussion, too. Thanks for jumping in. Kit 21:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

65.182.172.87 comments:

        Comment: The Green Tortoise runs the shuttle at Burning Man, which is
        the primary means by which participants reach the neary communities
        of Empire of Gerlach to resupply. Its buses arrive in such numbers that
        not only is the Green Tortoise one of the largest camps at Burning Man,
        but part of BRC would be hard to recognize without the GT's signiature
        shade structure. While the Tortoise has a life outside of Burning Man,
        the same might be said of almost every other group of participants.

        The link should stay in.

Just to clarify, 65.* and make sure we are on the same page, this is a discussion over whether Green Tortoise should be part of Category:Burning Man, not a discussion of the 'See Also' link to the Green Tortoise article in Burning Man. However, I am inclined to agree with you on this matter. I will put Green Tortoise back in Category:Burning Man. Please take any further discussion of this or other items in the category to Category talk:Burning Man or Talk:Green Tortoise as appropriate, as it is not really on topic for this page. Kit 21:54, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this categorization. The green tortoise's involvement in burning man is a miniscule part of it's operations. Furthermore, the impact the Green Tortoise has /on/ burning man is miniscule, a medium to small sized theme camp of somewhat ramdon assembly (bus riders need not even bring their own food!) I find this somewhat akin to putting the article for porta-potties in the burningman category. Should the Green Tortoise also be in a category for the Oregon County Fair? How about Alaska? Perhaps Yosemite? They do run busses to all of those places. This conversation should be moved to GT. ∴ here…♠ 22:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Conversation on this topic is continuing at Talk:Green Tortoise

Sources Collection

I have started a collection of sources we can use in improving articles in Category:Burning Man or for writing new articles, located at User:Todfox/Burning Man/Sources. Please feel free to edit that page to any articles or sources you think should be included. If you have comments on the quality of the links, you can use User talk:Todfox/Burning Man/Sources to discuss them. Thanks! Kit 21:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Letter to Bman's Media Team

Dear Media Team:

I am a 2-time attendee of the Burning Man event. I also am an editor for Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org/). I would like to use some of the images I took at the event in articles on Burning Man, theme camps, and other topics relating to the Burner subculture. However, in order for me to use photos in our encyclopedia they must be released under the GNU Free Documentation License, the copyright which covers wikipedia as a whole. This means that although copyright would be retained by myself, I would be granting permission for others to use, copy, and share the photos freely including for commercial use. For the complete text see: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL

I do not believe it is possible to identify any people from these photos,although if you wish to withhold permission for the photos which picture people in them I will certainly understand. However, it would help people to understand the event and subculture better if some or all of these pictures could be used in our encyclopedia. Alternatively, if you have other photos which can be released under the GFDL please let me know.

Thanks in advance, Kit

I tried to pick a variety of pictures which mostly do not picture anyone in them, including a number of pictures of two temples by David Best. Hopefully we will get permission. I can try and dig up something suitable for Theme camp and ask again when it comes to it, if we get permission to use this batch. I'll update this page when I get a reply. Kit 04:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I received my first reply from a Dennis Hinkamp who works with the Burning Man Media Team. He said the idea of releasing photos into the GFDL is a new one for them and so there would have to be discussion with the team. In particular, he seems concerned that the GFDL would allow someone to use one of these images as stock photography which they have restricted in the past. This is somewhat true, since the GFDL allows for commercial use and alteration. I replied:

I certainly understand the need for discussion with the team. I'd just like to reiterate that the actual text of the GFDL can be found here: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GFDL so your team can discuss it fully. I hope that the team approves my images or some other images for use by the encyclopedia but I plan to honor your decision. Of course, given the volunteer/consensus nature of the wikipedia and the fact that I have no special authority beyond that of a volunteer, I can't control what other people do with other images.

Anyway, keep up the good work.

Cheers,

Kit

Should they refuse to use my images, I will endeavor to verify with them what year the restrictions were imposed so that we could endeavor to only use images which predate that time. Kit 19:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks kit, I would direct them to this page as well. I have a number of images of David's temples starting around 2001... If it makes sense in your dialogue, you might ask more generally about what actions we should take in considering future image additions to the GFDL wikipedia project. ∴ here…♠ 21:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The representative of the Burning Man media team has asked that we not use photos because they do not wish them placed into the GFDL. This is not a 'hard no' but a no until some of their concerns can be addressed; I have sent the following reply:

Can I have your permission to post this to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Burning_Man where discussion of this issue is going on with the other editors (minus your email address, of course!)? I would like the input of editors more familiar with Wikipedia and image licensing issues and it would be easiest if I could quote your concerns directly rather than paraphrasing. Thanks!

Also, can you tell me if there was a specific year when these restrictions on media use of images at Bman went into effect? Have the same restrictions been in place since the beginning (or at least since it moved to Black Rock)?

Kit

Although I would prefer to only use images that are not in violation of Bman's image restrictions, I won't mess with the ones in the article yet until we have further dialogue with the media team. Kit 23:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV complaint by 65.182.172.87

Comment by 65.182.172.87:

     Comment: No, I guess it's not. I'm disputing the neutrality of this
     article, not only because of the dispute regarding your handling of
     the links, but also because of the disappearance of the "criticism of
     Burning Man" section, which is hardly very NPOV.

     I'll take a look at the rest of the article, and see if there are any
     other objections to be made.

(This comment also refers to a links dispute which can be found in Talk:Burning Man/Archive02.

I agree that the Criticism section should be restored. Has the text of the criticism section actually been deleted or just the subheading? It looks like the text that used to be under criticism is now part of the Timeline section, in which case it should be easy enough to restore the subheading in preparation for eventual expansion of that section.

Do you still request that all links be included, period? In our last discussion, because we could not come to consensus, I made the following request: In order to facilitate dispute resolution (see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution) on this matter, would you be willing to try to settle this via a survey (Wikipedia:Survey guidelines) or, failing that, mediation (see Wikipedia:Mediation)? If your desire is still the same as before, then my request stands: A survey, or mediation? If you have some other idea in mind on how we can reach consensus, please suggest it.

Finally, I would again like to remind you that per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, please insert your comments at the end of the discussion rather than in the middle of mine. Kit 21:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Burning Man 2005 was my first Burn, but I had been involved with my regional Burners in Canada for close to a year. After reading this discussion I have a few thoughts to add.

Controversy always has a right to be explored. Heck the Controversy about Burning Man could probably fill it's very own wikipedia article. If there was no controversy, there would be no BORG2, or BORG3...
My only request regarding Controversy is that it be kept to the point. People have disputes about commerce, and whether internet transactions count as playa commerce. Is it really our obligation to subsidize art projects? There are 36,000 people from Black Rock City who could detail at least one controversy. If it gets too verbose, seriously, dedicate a separate page to it.
As for the links. Links to the Burning Man official website is necessary. The maps of Burning Man are pretty neat (and technically available on the BM website). Packing lists and trip suggestions are also available on the BM official website, though the wikitravel was a novel suggestion. Links to theme camps should be a no-go. There are hundreds of theme camps. If the ones that weren't mentioned in the article weren't such mainstays, then I might be complaining about that.
If everyone signs their posts, this also makes the conversation a lot more civil.

Does that cover it? That's just my two cents. --Waterspyder 22:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. We should start with a concise section giving a broad overview of the major controversies about the event and once it grows large enough, spawn off a separate article which will be linked along with the more concise overview in the main article-- some others I can think of that waterspyder didn't mention are its effect on Empire/Gerlach, the outlawing of guns and pets in BRC, whether the event has grown too large, the supposedly worsening spectator to participant ratio, the presence of children, and increased restrictions brought on by cooperation with the police so there is easily enough for a separate article especially if the author is willing to find sources for all criticism. It will be important to maintain an NPOV when writing it: to give a broad example, 'some attendees feel the event has grown to large' rather than 'the event has grown too large' or 'most burners agree the event has grown too large.' I propose Controvery about Burning Man as this future article's title, unless Controversies about Burning Man is considered more appropriate. Kit 02:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I vote for Controversy about Burning Man although Burning Controversy would sound hotter... just not as explicit and practical. I also agree with everything else that Kit has mentioned. I think it should be apparent to anyone at this point that there is a lot of controversy that wheels around and it is hard to accomodate mentioning all of it. --Waterspyder 19:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

To play devils advocate, why take the contraversy out of the article? Take the Burning Shithead Festival for instance. Clearly, it is a related festival which people might want to know about, and seems more useful if listed with the others. Maybe it should be granted a place of distinction, like a subsection, or the end of the section (current version). No opinion about other specific contraversies, just though I mention this one. - 130.88.123.188 17:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I realize work has been stalled on this for a bit, but I don't believe consensus was to remove controversy from the article, but rather to give a broad overview of some of the major controversies here with potentially a larger, more detailed article on another page. The reasoning behind this was the amount of controversy people have generated on this festival over the years, not a desire to keep it from being included in the main article -- I agree some needs to be there, too. Kit 19:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Is this still disputed??

From a quick skim, there's some discussion about photos -- which isn't really relevent to the big "NEutrality Disputed" banner. There seems to be at least a casual consensus that the controversy belongs on wikipedia, but the only discussion left is whether it belongs within the article, in a section at the end of the article, or in its own section. If my take is accurate, then can we at least start the process and take the banner down? As is, the "Burning Shithead" and "AntiBurningman" festivals ARE mentioned within the text of the article. Scix 04:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The complaint was not mine initially but let me try to address this. First, the photos obviously are not related, I agree -- I will try to address this in its own section later. Anyway, as to the NPOV complaint I think that the article could do a much better job of presenting the broad spectrum of complaints about the event -- it mentions two anti-festivals but little of the reasons they exist, and it doesn't even mention a number of the larger controversies such as the criticism of the event by locals.

So yes, there is some controversy mentioned. I do not think necessarily it espouses a POV, but it could definitely be more NPOV than it is now. Whether this means we should leave the tag or remove it is something I leave up to others' though. I am not inspired to be bold about this. I would rather see it removed and more added to the article, but for now I am afraid I need to take a nap. Naps take precedence over wikilife. ;)Kit 13:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Dialogue w/ Burning Man Media Team 2

I received permission to post the following from Dennis Hinkamp of Burning Man's media team:

Hi Kit -

I think we are going to have to step back and think about this and say "no" for now. We all uniformly like Wikipedia but the way the images are presented for possible commercial use violates the contracts we have been making our photographers adhere to all these years. There is also a link on your site that's linked to Creative Commons.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Lightmatter_burningman.jpg

They have a method of specifying "not for commercial use" though the photographer is not using it in this case. Is there any way to modify your agreement in this way?

The way we read it, Coke could grab an image off of Wikipedia and run an ad branding Coke to Burning Man. Maybe I am oversimplifying, but do you see the danger?

So, we are not saying no forever but no for now until some of these issues can be sorted out.

Respectfully,

Dennis

While waiting to receive permission to post this (which, as I said, I have just received), I also received the following from Burning Man's Communications Manager, Andie Grace:

Kit,

Thanks for checking in. The simplest way to phrase the policy for that discussion is that Burning Man doesn't allow commercial use of any imagery obtained at the event, without specific written permission from Burning Man. Burning Man defines commercial use as "any use beyond your friends and family", so releasing images to completely unrestricted public use is beyond the scope of what we are able to allow. We have promised our community that this is how we will enforce our copyrights, so we are bound to uphold it universally.

I don't have all the tickets since the desert in front of me, but I have back to 98, and the "No Commercial Use" clause was definitely in place at least that long ago. Marian Goodell seems to remember that said clause dates back as far as 1995, and I could provide you with a verified date with a little poking around, but it would take me a little longer.

You may post my comments if you like.

Thanks,

Andie Grace

Communications Manager, Burning Man

So apparently we might be able to use images from prior to 1995, if we can find any and release them into the GFDL, but this obviously limits depictions of the event in its most modern incarnation. It does not seem that worthwhile to request a verified date though.

Is it possible to use images on wikipedia that are licensed only for non-commercial use? My understanding is NO.

However, it seems that what Dennis and Andie are missing a critical item: While items under the GFDL can be used for commercial purposes, derivative work must be licensed under the GFDL as well. So if someone took my GFDL image and turned it into a Coca-Cola commercial, Coca-Cola would be legally bound to release their commercial under the GFDL as well, allowing me in turn make my own commercial making fun of Coca-Cola? Additionally, is it correct that their commercial would either have to include the entire text of the GFDL or a link back to Wikipedia's text? It seems like these two clauses effectively prevent the sort of commercial exploitation that BMorg is concerned about, but I would like editors more experienced with wikipedia's image policy and the GFDL to back me up on this before I make these assertions to Burning Man. Kit 00:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This analysis is correct; however I doubt it will assuage Burning Man's concerns because even though it may not be in a commercial entity's interest to use GFDL photos, they still legally can. If Burning Man is as paranoid about commercialization of their event as the agreement and these followup messages make out, I believe it is unlikely that Burning Man will ever willingly agree to allow photos taken at Burning Man to be released under the GFDL. However, their legal standing to prevent the release of photos taken at Burning Man under the GFDL is questionable. See my analysis at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive N#Burning Man, images, GFDL, and unusual image restrictions. Nohat 09:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

(I moved this to a new section for clarity) Kit 00:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have started a dialogue about the unusual issues raised by this at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive N#Burning Man, images, GFDL, and unusual image restrictions.

It should be noted that although in these messages Burning Man seems to be implying that they control the copyrights of images taken at Burning Man, that is not in fact the case. The copyrights are retained by the original photographers. They are attempting to apply new restrictions to the use of photographs taken at Burning Man, which is not something that they can do in a way which is legally enforceable because they don't own or control the copyrights. The only restrictions which might apply are the ones in the agreement between the photographer and Burning Man. While these messages make it clear what their intentions are, it should be clear that we have no legal obligation to not use these photos. If we choose not to use these photos, it will have to be because we are electing to do so, not because we are legally obligated to do so. Nohat 09:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have decided to delete my image, Image:Neonman.jpg - see Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2005_November_4. I've licensed another, remarkably similar image, Image:Neonman2.jpg, which is licensed {{PermissionAndFairUse}} instead of {{gfdl}}. Page updated accordingly! - Ali-oops ^✍ 19:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Archived Village pump discussion

The following discussion took place on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) Kit 18:30, 6 November 2005 (UTC):

Archived discussion: Burning Man, images, GFDL, and unusual image restrictions

We've encountered some unusual issues in regards to image use and the GFDL on Talk:Burning Man. The Burning Man event requires that all attendees agree not to use images they take at the event for commercial purposes.

We are attempting to obtain permission from the Burning Man organization to use some pictures on the page, but they are leery of releasing images under the GFDL. Even reporters and other members of the media, who are given special permission to make commercial use of images they take, must agree to very restrictive uses of those images which are probably incompatible with the GFDL. The discussion is two fold: is there a way to get the BMorg to agree to our use of the images, and if they do not agree what do we do? This is an unusual issue with which I am having some difficulty applying our image policies and may not be an area which has come up in exactly this way before.

Background on the discussion can be found at Talk:Burning Man#Images of/at Burning_Man and Talk:Burning Man#Letter to Bman's Media Team. The most recent updates and ongoing discussion can be found in Talk:Burning Man#Dialogue w/ Burning Man Media Team 2.

Comments from those more experienced in these issues appreciated on that page. Kit 01:54, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If they do not agree, we delete the images. You say they are available for non-commercial use only: that makes them speedies by decree of Jimbo unless and until agreement is reached. They have the option of releasing them into the public domain, of course, but I don't suppose they'll like that much either. You may be able to rope in someone from the Foundation for assistance. -Splash^talk 01:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the person who takes the photo the sole holder of the copyright? How can the Burning Man org regulate the copyright under which photos taken by attendees fall under? -Greg Asche (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Using a small number of photos, for which no free alternatives exist, in the context of illustrating the Burning Man article itself would in my judgment qualify for a fair use tag. It is not as good as having a GFDL image, but it allows them to maintain the ownership they desire while asserting our legal right to make limited, educational use of otherwise copyrighted materials. Dragons flight 02:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone might take pictures without participating in an agreement, and own the copyright. Are we supposed to enforce an agreement in which we are not participating? (SEWilco 03:01, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

First of all, we are under no legal obligation to enforce an agreement to which we are not a party. If a photo has been legitimately released under the GFDL, we can use the photos however we want, provided we abide by the terms of the GFDL.

The agreement does state "commercial use of all imagery taken at Burning Man is forbidden without express permission". If someone releases photos they have taken at Burning Man under the GFDL, and those photos are subsequently used commercially, the photographer may be in violation of the agreement. Given that, I think it would be wise to advise our users who upload photos from Burning Man and attempt to release them under the GFDL that doing so may be in violation of their contract with Burning Man, and that they should consult their lawyer before doing so. I do not think that Wikipedia and the foundation are at legal risk for using Burning Man photos which have been released by the photographers under the GFDL, so any policy we adopt should not be justified by an argument that using those photos puts us at any legal risk.

The question about the legal risk to the photographers themselves, though, is less clear. Unfortunately, the agreement is poorly worded and so the legal situation is murky. This restriction only prohibits attendees themselves from commercially using imagery taken at Burning Man. Since the agreement is only between Burning Man and the attendee, if taken literally, it cannot really be construed as applying to anyone else. There is a reason that lawyers use lots of verbiage in contracts: so that the status of situations like this are never left vague. If I were them, I would have made it say something like "Attendees shall not themselves use, cause to be used, or allow to be used any imagery taken at Burning Man for any commercial purpose." This would have made clear what they have left vague. If this ever were to go to court, I think the fact that the agreement did not say that would put Burning Man at a serious legal disadvantage. Furthermore, there is a question of whether or not a clause limiting the use of photos in this way would be legally enforceable. In my opinion (and IANAL), Burning Man would lose a case if they tried to sue an attendee who released photos taken at Burning Man under the GFDL.

Now that this has been brought to their attention, I would expect (and hope) next year to see the agreement spell out this restriction more clearly, so that people can make more informed decisions about whether to agree to the contract. However, the question of whether or not such a restriction is legally enforceable remains open. Nohat 09:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, just to clarify: the images are owned by the original copyright holder who took them while attending the Burning Man event; however, attendees technically agreed to not release photos for commercial use without permission of the Burning Man organization's media team. The biggest question is, are we (that is Wikipedia, as I won't be submitting my own images in violation of this) or should we be bound by this restriction?

IMHO I would like to see us abide by the restriction because it shows Wikipedia is a good citizen, but I recognize it might set a very bad precedent.

The second, smaller question is, is it fair to represent the GFDL as potentially protecting against use of images taken at Burning Man in corporate advertisements? This seems to be the major concern of the Burning Man media team, but in my reading of the GFDL if, for example, Coca-Cola were to use an image of Burning Man which had been placed into the GFDL in one of their commercials, they would also have to release the commercial itself into the GFDL. In addition, my understanding is Coca-Cola would also have to somehow either include the entire text of the GFDL in their ads or link to Wikipedia's copy of the GFDL in their ad? Kit 07:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I am the copyright holder of one of the images in question; Image:Neonman.jpg, which had been released under the GFDL. Can I now revoke that somehow and retro-license it under, say, FairUseAndPermission or somesuch? - Ali-oops ^✍ 08:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

If you can't relicense for some reason, as the copyright holder you can license another copy of your image in any way you wish. You can make copies from your original and you can do whatever you want with them. The GFDL only applies to the one version to which the GFDL is attached. (SEWilco 13:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

I should point out that "any way you wish" depends upon your wishes, which are affected by your limitations. If you're under a contract that you have to pay (or be paid by) someone $100 whenever you make a copy then this will affect your decisions. (SEWilco 13:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

Whilst you can't "relicense" images, what this discussion has shown is that you weren't legally entitled to release it under the GFDL in the first place, so that "license" is meaningless... does that make sense? Tagging it FU - not FUAP, since as we've seen you're not controlling all relevant rights - might be a useful solution in the interim, if you do feel it is fair use in that context. Shimgray | talk | 13:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

We don't know the photograph's background. Maybe it was taken through a telescope from outside the area. Maybe the photographer got in without having to agree to anything. Is there a WikiResearch service? But if Wikipedia is not party to an agreement then why is this an issue? Anyone can scribble something, but that does not require everyone to obey it. (SEWilco 13:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC))

People with such photographs might want to consider licensing them with {{Limited Use}}. This permits reuse, including for commercial purposes, but only in connection with a proper encyclopedic article about the subject or in which the subject is referenced. There is also {{Limited Use-person}} for pictures of individual people. That might avoid the problems that the Burning Man agreement was intended to deal with. Whether this would adaquetely protect such a photographer is a legal question, and IANAL, and i haven't even seen the text of the Burning Man photo agreement so i have no useful opnion. DES ^(talk) 15:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Images and video which are reproductions of an event or performance (especially one occurring on private property) are considered to be derivative works of that performance and hence require the copyright permission of the performers. Examples of this that are often defended are movies and sporting events. I can not just go into a movie theater, video tape the movie, and resell it. That is a clear violation of production company's copyright. Similarly, I can't take photos or video at a sporting event (e.g. a football game) and then go distribute those without the express permission of the authority managing the event (e.g. the NFL). The same rules apply to performance art (especially on private property) though an artist defending their rights in that case is more uncommon.

As a matter of law, if we knowingly allow to be violated the copyright of a third party, then the contributory infringement clause of US copyright law can apply. Which is to say that even though we are not parties to the agreement, if we redistribute content under terms we know to be invalid, then we could be culpable as well.

There are some gray areas here. For example, the copyright would nominally vest in the performers, and without some statement of assignment, it is not obvious that the Burning Man Group has the authority to dictate terms of use. (Maybe such an agreement is part of the permission to attend the event?) So, I would not be sure that Burning Man would win the legal dispute; however, for us there is a simpler solution that avoids the potential problem. In the context, there are very good grounds for fair use and since the only thing we are worried about is the non-commercial clause, no one would have to violate the terms of their agreement if we argue that fair use is our rationale for inclusion. Dragons flight 15:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

{{Limited Use}} seems perfect, except that it appears to be up for deletion and not in keeping with Wikipedia's principles, at least according to some. I was under the impression that {{Fair Use}} images are frequently subject to deletion -- am I mistaken on this? Would this not apply to Burning Man images? Kit 10:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

{{Fair Use}} images are subject to deletion when they do not qualify as fair use where they are used. Examples

"Fair use" image that is not used in any article. There can not be any "fair use" if the image is not used.
The image is missing essential information (typically, its source) so that a judgement on fair use can not be made.
The image is only used in a context that is clearly not fair use (such as using an album cover with a picture of a dog to illustrate Dog where the album or artists are not under discussion).

So, there have been a number of deletions of "fair use" images where the tag was misused.

--Tabor 19:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you think images taken at Burning Man dealing with the event or related topics would qualify as fair use? Kit 19:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I have decided to delete my image, Image:Neonman.jpg - see Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2005_November_4. I've licensed another, remarkably similar image, Image:Neonman2.jpg, which is licensed {{PermissionAndFairUse}} instead of {{gfdl}}. Page updated accordingly! - Ali-oops ^✍ 22:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Plenty of major commercial publications have run pictures of Burning Man in articles about the event. How do they get around this? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:48, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Their photographers got permissioin from the Burning Man media team, who object to the images being entered into the GFDL because of the unlimited commercial use clause. i.e., if a picture appeared in Time Magazine the photographer got permission to publish the photos in that magazine, but agreed not to publish it elsewhere such as a stock photography service. The media team is concerned/objects to the way they would no longer control the future uses of images posted to Wikipedia, and how it could, they fear, eventually end up in an advertisement as a consequence. Kit 03:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Add new comments here

an interesting parallel situation at the louvre: meta:It_is_forbidden_to_take_pictures_! ∴ here…♠ 02:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Interesting comments from there:

However, this ban clearly blocks access to a unique heritage which should belong to the world, without needing to go through the Louvre, its website, CD-ROM, postcards or books. From now, artwork from the Louvre will be accessible only through an exclusive filter. No other person, institution, company, association will be able to display artwork from the Louvre without authorization. This includes Wikipedia.

So that refers to a museum, but the same argument could be made of Burning Man. Thanks for pointing this out. Kit 05:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Burning Man: Beyond Black Rock

Added this to the links section. Perhaps this and other Burning Man videos should have their own articles created. --Matthew Cohen (Tccmod: user / talk / contribs) 00:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Reorder / Nudity Sex and Drugs

I moved and re-wrote the nudity section so that it fitted the flow better - jsut before the police and public safety sections, dug use could use som language about not taking drugs from strangers and thr risk of getting dosed - anybody up for writing it? Sexuality could use some language on sexual assult prevention as that issue has the attention of BMorg. LEO's and Rangers. Trapper 08:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a public safety manual. Information on real issues in the past is one thing, writing about issues that aren't specific to BM is another (should we have a section about not taking food from strangers? No telling how long that bacon has been sitting in the warm melted ice! wikipedia isn't a place to instruct people on who and who not to trust). If you can find a published source of material to reference about the "dangers of taking drugs from strangers at burning man" and want to include any encyclopedic information it may contain (please reference you source in this case), then maybe you migh be able to contribute something appropriate and germane to the article. But I suspect your talking about orignal research and being a little didactic, neither of which is appropriate for wikipedia.

If the sexual assault issue has recieved some attention, then mention it in an encylopedic way, not a "How To Prevent Sexual Assualt" sort of way, I don't know if it would be germane to the "sexuality" section though. --Brentt 19:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Nudity, sex And drugs -> Illicit Activities

The whole association of "Nudity, Sex and Drugs" comes from a POV. Nudity isn't necessarily sexual unless your coming from a traditional POV (which would not be NPOV), and as far as I can tell, sex and drugs only go together because of a cliche. I'm renaming the section "illicit activity" and removing the irrelevant and redundant talk of nudity in it (the nudity is talked about in other sections as I seem to recall--I havn't read the whole article in a while, and I don't have time now, but if not, then it needs to be mention either in its own section, or a more relavant section). I replaced the phrase "open sexuality" with "public sex" as it could be gleaned from context that the original contributor wasn't really talking about "open sexuality" they we're talking about public sex. --Brentt 19:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Some good points - I think the section originated because the headonistic aspect of BM got lumped together - however public sex and drug use are both against the law so in that context they belong together. one way to go would be to handle the legal stuff in the current paragraph, move the nudity stuff to an section on dress/costume styles and some place else mention that the playa is a hostile enrironment and link out to the BM survival guide. Trapper 04:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a cited Reference to "sexuality" (e.g. open sexuality) at Burning man, but I don't see one about "public sex". Nudity doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else in the article - so I added it back; and "illicit" is implicit in the wording of the associated acts. - Dreadlocke 20:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Illicit" is implicit in the wording how? There was a reason, explained above for the change. You didn't adress it. There was a subtle POV issue being adressed, and you changed it back without adressing said POV issue. The section is not germane to "open sexuality" or "public nudity", as neither are inherently illicit. The nudity and "open sexuality" should be mentioned but in a section that doesn't automatically associate it with illicit activities, as they are quite seperate acts. It'd be like having a section in the sexuality article called "homosexuality and pedophilia", that goes on with an implicit assumption about the connection of the two. (this of course wouldn't be as an egregious an obvious POV issue with the structure, but it is similar nonetheless, hence why it is a "subtle" POV issue)

Your right about the reference, it isn't really germane to the content of that section. That doesn't mean the section should go back to the version with the POV issue though. Brentt 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks on the reference thing, I'm the one who originally put it there, so it kinda stuck out for me... :)

As for my other comments, I think "illicit" means "illegal", and to me that was implicit in the wording "not tolerated by law enforcement" and by the fact that tickets are given out for the behavior. From what I see in the history, POV only came into it when someone changed the title to "Illicit activities". "Open sexuality" and "public nudity" were included in the section to begin with. After the heading change, these were basically removed and not referenced anywhere else in the article. The Cited Reference in the section was no longer applicable, since it talked about "Public Nudity" and "Sexuality". I don't think the article needs a section on "Illicit activity", the original was fine with perhaps some improved wording to clarify any distinction between "legal" and "illegal" activities. Improve the article by writing something that makes more sense. The way "public nudity" is referenced now doesn't make as much sense, nor does it convey the nature of public nudity at BM. How do "public sex" and "open sexuality" really differ? Doesn't the broader "open sexuality" cover "public sex"? - Dreadlocke 21:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and your last edit removed the "References" section as well as other sectional ordering. Careful when you revert to an earlier version. - Dreadlocke 21:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the current "Illicit activities" section from the "subtle pov" angle, I think you still have your problem with associating nudity with illicit activity and public sex - perhaps an even stronger association than the previous version. Even considering the qualifer "unlike public nudity", it still looks like it is an illicit act and is associated with both public sex and drugs. The heading is the real problem, I think. But I guess we could just remove the reference to nudity from that section altogether since it's now addressed in the section above it (which needs a little expansion). References to the entire illicit section are needed, tho... - Dreadlocke 04:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

References added Trapper 16:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, Trapper! Sex and drugs, oh the cliché! (sorry, couldn’t resist). They don't really add much info on "illicit public sex acts" and law enforcement's reaction to it, but I guess the one "doing the nasty on stage" reference will do. - Dreadlocke 20:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the reference to "nudity" from the "illicit activities" section, which I believe was your intent, Brentt? If not, we can put it back and discuss... Dreadlocke 20:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Open sexuality" is not the same as "public sex". While "public sex" could be considered "open sexuality" not everything that would be considered "open sexuality" would be considered "public sex"--get it? ("Isn't Hawaii the same as Earth? Hawaii is on Earth after all?".) Its a very bad choice of words. --Brentt 05:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was exactly my line of reasoning. The thrust of my statement was that you completely removed the reference to "open sexuality" at BM, and clouded the issue of nudity, which were two of the main points being made in the original section - no matter how badly it may have been worded. My initial concern is irrelevant now, since I've added a new section.

Generally when I delete a bad reference (as you properly did) I attempt to write a new one that encompasses all the original "good" ideas that were presented. For instance, instead of having two sections, I was thinking more along the lines of writing a single section that mentioned "open sexuality" as being part of the BM experience, and stemming from that a reference to the aspects of "illicit public sex", but from what you seemed to indicate, you didn't want to see the "illicit" being associated with anything presumably legal - as in "nudity, sex, and drugs". As I said, I agreed there should be "improved wording to clarify any distinction between "legal" and "illegal" activities," meaining nudity/open sexuality, and drugs/public sex acts. - Dreadlocke 07:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

clean up

"Fandango loves you drunk"(?) among other unencyclopedic atrocities. Looks more like an old BB then an encyclopedia :) Dlohcierekim 19:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the main problem is that it reads like a brochure. This article has had consisten problems with burners making contributions in a style that is not encyclopedic but is rather like people trying to prime others for the event. Wikipedia is not the place for that kind of info (there are hundreds of other sites for that stuff, including the official BM website.)

Of course there are always going to be burners who are excited about the event making contributions like that. I think we'd do well that have a info box on the talk page to that reminds people that this is a place for encyclopedic information, not a brochure. Brentt 06:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. For now, the top priority would be cleaning up the theme camps section, it's slowly growing with vanity edits. I oscillated between just deleting it all and keeping a handful of representative ones. I do think theme camp websites are an interesting addition for people learning about the event, but I'm not sure how you would select 4-5 and justify deleting new additions. --Zambaccian 16:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Theme camps at Burning Man should have the same encyclopedic standards as shops along a famous street. You wouldn't list every Starbucks and McDonalds that has ever existed along a famous thoroughfare, but you might mention a few that have significantly altered or established the character of that area. Take 42nd Street for example. --Vees 19:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds nice enough in theory, but someone with more knowledge than me should do make the cut. --Zambaccian 07:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

citations tag

I've asked User:NLOleson to comment here on why he/she feels the page needs a citations tag - if there is no further explanation by the time I get back from the playa I'll remove the tag. Now back to packing Trapper 14:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Listing Theme Camps

The listing of some theme camps and not all theme camps seems unfair and incomplete. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of theme camps each year. I would like to strike the listing of any theme camps in this article. Thoughts? —X S G 01:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Jan/Feb 2008 clean up and expansion

I am putting this section in here because during my recent cleanup and content adding, I just got tired of trying to figure out where I should put my comments and discussion pieces. If you want to comment on what I have done, please do so here. I will, however, try to add comments through out this document if possible.

I removed this section from Safety and Policy since it did not really fit, but I would like to include it in at a later time since I think it is a good example of the clash of the culture of Washoe County and the participants of BRC. Where as the county is very conservative and the residents of BRC are not.

Burning Man has developed a reputation for drug use,^[1] which is not tolerated by law enforcement.
In 2001, local law enforcement objected to an art installation depicting a homosexual act at a former camp called "Jiffy Lube" now renamed "Stiffy Lube." The art was moved to a more private area of the camp, giving rise to charges of censorship and homophobia from a number of quarters.^[2]

I attempted to find this citation in the Criticism section but was unable too. It is refereed to on the Stop Burningman website, but since it is down, I have removed them from page.

According to ecologists Peter Brussard and Donald Sada, the cumulative effects of Burning Man on the complex playa ecosystem need to be more carefully investigated.

I would like this section to be expanded as there are plenty criticisms of Burning Man. I am not saying I am personally anti Burningman but to give the idea it is a island of perfection would be intellectually dishonest at the very least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtmurphy (talk • contribs) 19:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up history section, but still needs work and citations. I also broken down the ban list in 1997-present, which needs more citation too. I have also gotten my Girlfriend, a professional Copy Editor for a large daily newspaper to do some high quality editing when we are close to being done. Jtmurphy (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed this from the Decommodification section as it appears it is not true.

Fresh water fill for RVs and camp water tanks, available for cash from the official contractor.
Aviation fuel, which may be purchased at the airport by prearrangement.

Jtmurphy (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am continuing to add bits and pieces here and clean up to boot. Will continue to clean up and am ready to start adding more information to the whole thing. There is great opportunity for this article to be something as long as we do not turn it into a travel brochure or a lonely planet guide. Jtmurphy (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Added more in Principles and will continue to add more and clean up Jtmurphy (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Finished up Principles and encourage anyone good at writing to take a whack at it. Also cleaned up more and removed more brochure and fanism. Jtmurphy (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI BM is in Pershing county not Washoe (the line is at about the 3 mile entrance to the playa) Trapper (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This article needs some serious work

The article comes off as an amateur brochure. This is a place for encyclopedic information. Most of it was clearly written by people who have been and are excited about it (which is fine, but you shouldn't be able to tell that from the contributions) One of the most obvious offenses against encyclopedic content is the "advice" sprinkled here and there. Please leave that kind of stuff out. I'm going through, and taking out the most obvious unencyclopedic information, but the whole article is written in a tone that is not appropriate for a encyclopedia article. I'm not even going to get into the citing problem.

I would like to see this one day become a featured article (at its current state it should have never even been considered). This isn't going to happen if people excited about the event come here and write in a way that makes it obvious its coming from a participants point of view. This isn't a place to learn what to do and what not to do on the Playa. Its a place to learn facts about burning man. It is not a place to get advice, or to initiate the uninitiated. Brentt 23:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

One big thing I see that needs improvement is that the Notes section should be renamed References and actually formatted like references. There are lot of notes and external links where the information here is theoretically verifiable but that doesn't exempt the article from having an actual references section Plymouths 14:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Much of the brochure parts of this article should be removed. For example, discussing how much Ice and Coffee costs is pointless and not worthy of a good article. Jtmurphy (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A whole article about Burning Man and only one mention of the word 'drug' at all? Really? 98.216.65.79 (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Airport travel brochure--inappropriate style

Here is an example of the kind of travel brochure-like advice that should not be in this article (the first sentence is OK).

Black Rock City also has its own airport for small private planes, run by volunteers. Mountainous desert regions are extremely dangerous for inexperienced and experienced pilots alike, however, and it's not recommended to fly into this airport unless one is experienced with desert flying. The only advertised airfares are for shuttles offered by Advantage Flight Solutions from Reno and the Bay Area.

This is not a lonely planet guide. If there have been notable problems with the airport in the past, that may be germane to this article and please include it, but please don't write it in a travel brochure style which is warning prospective attendees of dangers. Instead cite the problems there have been in the past with the airport, or cite concerns that have been raised by published sources about the safety of the airport. Brentt 19:44, 14 September

Yes, we need to make sure that any time someone adds information, especially the airport, that it is not of a brochure type nature. It seems that every time someone adds something about the airport, they just have to add some travel guide information to this article. Jtmurphy (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

While an Official NOTAM does go out about the black rock airport, it is _NOT_ listed on the Klamath Falls Chart, at least not the one in my hand, or any other I've ever seen. Also, I second the notion to add a notice to Pilots that the NOTAM is required, and all relevant information should be sourced there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.208.186 (talk) 03:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing and Purging

I've begun the process of finding a source for every comment made in the article. If I can't find a source, I'm purging it from the page and placing it here for assistance.

I encourage others to do the same, since I'm sure I don't have the time to do it all by myself. —X S G 03:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is well known that those are some of the few things on sale at BM. I'd be suprised if the BM website doesn't have info on that. But in this case I'm prepared not to object because the article needs so much work, and its been languishing in this poor state for so long, and it is so prone to being altered by enthusiastic burners in a laudatory or brochureish style. Maybe its good to make an exception for this article about lack of sourcing not being sufficient grounds for deletion for now. At least until the article improves and the cited information starts to outweigh the uncited information. There are so many published articles about BM that there is really no excuse for things not being sourced. Brentt 07:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

My take is that by moving content to the Discussion page, it isn't being deleted as much as it is giving people an opportunity to find a source which makes it acceptable for inclusion in the article... And since I wrote the above paragraph, you'd think I'd have a good source for that, but no... I pulled it all out of many years of Burning Man experience... —X S G 08:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Brentt 09:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Policing and Regulations moving second paragraph out until cited

I'm moving this from the article until it can be cited:

Recreational drug use is largely kept as a private activity and the number of roaming drug dealers has decreased dramatically since the mid-90's, although the amount of drugs actually consumed on the playa each year is still believed to be enormous. Officers refer to tickets issued for public drug use as the “Stupid Tax”. Undercover officers are known to roam the playa dressed up like attendees, even going so far as to be naked for the purpose of winning unsuspecting peoples' trust.

and please make a less weasel phrase ridden version e.g. "it is believed that"--believed by whom? The general public? Burners? You? Tell us who please. Brentt 08:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Philosophizing without attributing

This paragraph sounds like a bit of philosophizing by the contributor (italics):

Burning Man participants often call themselves "burners". Although this usage may vary with region, a burner is an annual denizen of Black Rock City, and anyone who embraces Burning Man as an expression in sync with their own identity is a burner. In general, the term's use is only practical in contexts outside of the event itself. A burner is usually someone who has been to the event and aspires to return, even if only in spirit. The concept also implies the sentiments and values inspired by the event itself, including a high regard for creativity, especially radical self-expression, and willingness to participate in a gift-based economy.

Its too philosophical not to be attributed to a published source. Please somebody either attribute it to someone or delete it. (if nobody finds a source I'm going to delete it.) Brentt 06:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Published material on sexuality at BM

Does anyone know a good published article about sexuality at burning man? I bring this up because the reference to BMs reputation for sexual promiscuity was in the Policing and Regulation section, where it doesn't really fit in because it has nothing to do with policing or regulation (aside from public sex). I moved it to the "Community" section, where it barely fits in really (along with the clothing optional bit, which also barely belongs in the community section), but I would think that a section on Sexuality would be good. But I would like some published material to reference before I create a whole section. Brentt 07:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a lab experiment. It's a community experiment. Of course it should go in community. This no longer reads like a bad travel guide. It reads like critics who haven't visited BRC.

You could try the archives at www.pissclear.org. Electric.tapir 19:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

I am going to try and go through and give it a good edit. I am an editor and Burning Man participant. Bear with me. --Waterspyder 01:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I started to organize the article, but had to stop for a break. Hopefully this will give others a framework to work with too. I'll be back to finish as soon as I can --Waterspyder 02:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you...it needs it. --Brentt

Info about German soldier executions sounds speculative

This kind of information needs to be sourced before being put in:

, or else to the method of execution that ancient German armies used against captured Roman commanders ( Roman commander Marcus Aurelius Scaurus, when captured at the Battle of Arausio by the Germanic Cimbria tribe, was put in a wicker cage and then burned alive)

Just doesn't sound like typical symbolic thinking of a bay area Bohemian. It might be true, but its far out enough to need a source before being in the article.

The bit about it being related to Wicker Man should be sourced too, since Harvey has disavowed it. But I guess it can slide for now since it says it says he has disavowed it. But it should probably be made more clear that it has been disavowed by harvey in the same sentence its presented. Brentt 19:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I was questioning this bit too. When I get a few minutes, I'll shorten it up. That much detail isn't necessary in this article, even if it remains referenced. --Waterspyder 20:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotation Punctuation

"community," "artwork," "absurdity," "decommodification," and "revelry." seems wrong to me. The change was made by someone without a login, so I can't discuss it with them directly. As such, I'm reverting the change so that it appears as community, artwork, absurdity, decommodification, and revelry. —X S G 03:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

(Ahem) encyclopedic cleanup

This article is partly very well-written, but it sure does need cleanup. I have removed the misleadingly titled section "Decommodification" (!) along with its low-value footnote links: some are mere spam (advertising), some fail to address the claims made, some are to pure how-to pages like bus timetables and ticket sales (WP:NOT a how-to guide). Also nearly the whole "Travel" section--sorry, but how to get there and how to get around in there, and so on and so forth, just aren't fit topics for an encyclopedia article. I left a mention of the art cars. Bishonen | talk 13:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

Agreed. Brentt 08:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I put a bit of time into reworking the decommodification section. The links aren't footnotes, they're references. They're not there to advertise, they're their to demonstrate the level of decommodification that Burning Man holds itself to. It's certainly open to criticism, but the fact of the matter is that it's not travel brochure information... For these reasons, I've put the decommodification section back. Please rework it, if you care to, but don't just delete it. I can support the removal of the travel section. —X S G 06:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If the links are references they should be formatted as references. See WP:CITE#H Plymouths 14:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am launching a major effort to clean up and remove much of the how-to guide and brochure nature of this article. I will also source as much as I can and try to bring this page up to the higher standard that it desires. Jtmurphy (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Green Tortoise

I don't see what this company have to do with Burning Man. Isn’t this company a capitalist venture...

Burning Man is not a money-free workers paradise. GT gives shuttle rides to and from the event from various cities and to and from Gerlach during the event (yes, for a price). It could be argued that its not a significant thing to put in, but lots of things at BM are "capitalist ventures"--ice, coffee, and ticket sales for for example. (as an aside the no commodification thing isn't a political stance on BMorg's part, its simply a way to keep the event from being overun by vendors. The event isn't a promotion of some Utopian vision of a workers paradise--hehe more like a temporary bourgeoisie paradise if anything. ) Brentt 23:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

BM itself is a capitalist venture - it's run by a for profit LLC Trapper 07:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The Green Tortoise company are actually contracted to provide said bus service by the Burning Man Project during the event; it is considered branch of the organization's Community Services department, and is an official part of the infrastructure.

Andie Grace 22:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A "festival" or "event"?

The folks at Burning Man have recently written

Burning Man is an event, the Event, the Project, Black Rock City...but not a FESTIVAL.
So it's NOT: "the 2007 Burning Man Festival" it's "Burning Man 2007"
It's a somewhat significant issue when it comes to the perception that "festivals" in america have music and vending (and even around the world). By removing the word we begin to remove ANY expectations of what Burning Man is...and as we all know even if a festival has no vending...it's hardly defined as just a "festival".

Hmmm. --Gadlen 22:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I take their point, although the objection is based on a modern, limited, and (as they tacitly acknowledge) American interpretation of the word "festival." I can understand them not wanting to be associated with the East Foobarville Art Festival and Funnel-Cake Cook Off, but it's still a fair use of the word. adamrice 22:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Gadlen 07:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings Adamrice and Gadlen. I was about to change "festival" to "event" when I saw your comments. So I would first like to know whether you would permit that change. Regarding Adamrice's comment, I must agree that "festival" could fairly be used to describe Burning Man. I believe that "event" could just as fairly be used. Do you agree? If so, I am encouraged that you may further agree that nothing essential would be lost in this change, i.e. that you are not invested in preserving the current language. My own motive, having gained first-hand experience of the event, is to improve the accuracy of the article; "festival" carries connotations (such as those quoted by Gadlen above) that may reinforce common but false assumptions about the event, whereas "event" has a broader meaning that better accommodates the breadth of what constitutes Burning Man. I accept Adamrice's assertion that those connotations are modern (knowing little, myself, about historical uses of the word "festival"), which speaks in favor of the change insofar as modern usages must be relevant to our decisions as editors. However, if you believe that "festival" is MORE accurate than "event" in reference to Burning Man, I'm curious to know your reasoning. I await your reply before I proceed with this edit. Thanks. Benccc 07:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I favor the change to "event" - festival implies a lot more organization that actually exists Trapper 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a discussion on the "Honoraria07-list" list. Involved in the discussion was Larry Harvey by proxy, Lady Bee, Chicken John, myself (Gadlen) and some others. The final word came from LadyBee and was pretty much, "You might well call it a festival and it's very festival-like but we're never going to market it that way." Here is a quote from LadyBee in an email to me (Gadlen)

From: LadyBee

Date: May 24 2007 - 1:24pm

from our media director:

thanks LB, sorry you're getting so much flack, but i guess the dialog is valuable....

The fact of the matter is...

You won't find us calling it a festival on the web site. We've been in the black rock desert since 1990. We don't want it called a festival, we don't want to be in the "festival roundups" in the rock magazines, we don't create a festival...it might be one, but that's not what I've worked 11 years on.

It's Burning Man

It's the Burning Man Project.

The feedback is lovely, but a fact is a fact. What else is left is their OPINIONS on the matter.

So really, you can call it a festival or think of it that way, we just don't publicly call it that for the above reasons. It's more about a specific category we get lumped into in the media than the broader context of the meaning of the word.

cheers = BEE

So, the current wording of the Burning Man Article, "Burning Man is an eight-day-long annual festival ..." is pretty much correct.--Gadlen 17:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I favor "event" per the [Guide] preference for self-description. The word "festival" is disputed by the subject and event is not disputed by anyone. Alternatively use the wordier "event, (organizers do not use the term 'festival')" or even longer and more accurately "event, (organizers dropped the word 'festival' from the name after 1992 (Doherty, Brian (2006). This Is Burning Man. Benbella Books. pp. p. 78. ISBN 978-1-932100-86-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)), and have publicly asked the term not be used in order to distinguish from more formally programmed events)" JKPrivett 10:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is room in this world (and Article) for both terms. The dictionary definition of "festival" and "event" both apply. Since a lot of recent Black Rock City LLC-approved media including television shows mention the "Burning Man Festival", they obviously aren't pushing too hard to blot out the word "festival".

JKPrivett write: I favor "event" per the Guide preference for self-description

Well, the article is about the whole of Burning Man, not just the Labor Day event/festival. IE: there's a listing of Regional events. I suppose that messes up both our arguments... Burning Man is a state of mind, not an event or festival ;-)

JKPrivett wrote: The word "festival" is disputed by the subject and event is not disputed by anyone

Since I'm the one who made the subject and I disagree with it, that's not a very good argument.

I suppose adding your This is Burning Man reference to the article could be useful. --Gadlen 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I also like the longer explanation supported by the reference. Trapper 17:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, I felt comfortable proceeding with the change from "festival" to "event" on the article. I called the Burning Man office to verify that organizers referred to Burning Man as a festival prior to 1992 (as mentioned in the book cited by JKPrivett) and I reached LadyBee, who said she didn't think this was correct, so to be safe I left it out. Benccc 00:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Benccc, how did you come to your conclusion? To paraphrase the above, Ladybee says it's pretty much a festival though they don't call it that, the dictionary makes it a festival, and old as well as recent authorized media calls it a festival.

I will add that hundreds of thousands of web references call it a festival, including the Burningman.com home page. To find that reference, go to http://burningman.com, view the source of the page and note that Meta Name Description is "Burning Man is an annual art festival and temporary community based on radical self expression and self-reliance in the Black Rock Desert of Nevada."

Benccc, could you please describe why in the face of this you obliterated the term "festival" from the entry? Some of your edits are nice but, as I said before, there is room for BOTH terms. Could you please adjust the entry accordingly? --Gadlen 00:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the first reference in the article from "event" to "festival". A more discriminating eye should be laid to the whole document to incorporate both terms appropriately. But this is a start --Gadlen 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Gadlen, I'm guessing you agree that Burning Man IS an event, but regard the greater specificity of the word "festival" as an improvement to the article. You could go further and call it an "art festival" or "music festival" or "dance festival," but I think you'd agree such specificity would come at the expense of accuracy. So perhaps you can understand that some Wiki editors regard "festival" as overly specific--in other words, while Burning Man certainly has elements of a festival (and elements of a dance festival, for that matter) we believe the term "festival" is so specific as to be a significantly incomplete descriptor of That Thing In The Desert, and therefore LESS helpful to our readers than the broader term "event." You're right that the media often refers to Burning Man as a festival, and I'd add that the media also refers to it as an event. But a tally of the prevalence of those descriptors in the media wouldn't tell us which is more accurate (we all know that errors and distortions can and do appear in the media, and that the errors most often repeated can masquerade as truth). But the factor I believe must settle the matter is the instruction in the Wikipedia Manual of Style that editors "use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification) whenever this is possible" (see Wikipedia Manual of Style ^[3]). Because the official policy of the organizers is to refer to Burning Man as an "event" and to avoid referring to it as a "festival" (regardless of whether individuals associated with Burning Man occasionally diverge from the practice), I feel bound to restore my edit. I'll briefly delay doing so in hope of first gaining your acceptance. Benccc 04:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I've now restored my edit per my post above. If you're unpersuaded that my edit should stand, I ask that you post here INSTEAD of undoing the edit, so we may seek to settle the matter via mediation. Thanks. Benccc 17:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questionable history moved from article

I moved the following from the article. The info needs to be sourced. It is too much of the kind of stuff that could just as well be apocryphal as real.

The name "Burning Man" may have come to Harvey when he was watching a video of the 1986 ritual. A member of the crowd watching the event supposedly shouted out "Wicker Man!", suggesting that the burning of the wooden effigy was somehow related to the ancient Celtic ritual of the Wicker Man, signifying rebirth. Harvey was the son of a Freemason, and (for Harvey) the use of wood in building the man had symbolic significance and was a critical part of the ritual; also, according to him, he did not see the movie The Wicker Man until many years later, so it played no part in his inspiration. Accordingly, rather than allow the name "Wicker Man" to become the name of the ritual, he started using the name "Burning Man."

Please reference a solid source before adding it back in. Brentt 00:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a solid, direct quote source: (Doherty, Brian (2006). This Is Burning Man. Benbella Books. pp. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-932100-86-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help))

Harvey has said that the name "Burning Man" came to him when he was watching a video of one of the Baker Beach burns. A member of the crowd had shouted out "Wicker Man!", suggesting that the burning of the wooden effigy was somehow related to the ancient Celtic ritual of the Wicker Man, signifying rebirth. Harvey was the son of a Freemason, and (for Harvey) the use of wood in building the man had symbolic significance and was a critical part of the ritual; also, he swears that he did not see the movie The Wicker Man until many years later, so it played no part in his inspiration. Accordingly, rather than allow the name "Wicker Man" to become the name of the ritual, and after considering "Lumber Man" and "Fire Man," he started using the name "Burning Man."^[4]

Can I add it back? JKPrivett 10:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea, but QUOTE it and attribute it. Apparently the problem wasn't a lack of source, it was outright plagiarism. Brentt 21:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I was unclear earlier. There was no palagarism. That was not a verbatim quote. It was my attempted revision of the removed text with clarifications based on the cited source. Below is another option, citing direct Larry Harvey quotes in the same source.

Harvey has said that the name "Burning Man" came to him when he was watching a video of one of the Baker Beach burns. A member of the crowd had shouted out "Wicker Man!", suggesting that the burning of the wooden effigy was somehow related to the ancient Celtic ritual of the Wicker Man, signifying rebirth.
Harvey said "I figured we needed a good name if people were going to call it that crap. Wood Man? Burning Man? OK. Burning Man. It felt right.... It was very much a carpentry deal. A fellow ship of carpenters. Like my father being a Freemason. 'Burning Man' is a great [multivalent] name because it's an action, an object, and a shared experience all at once."

^[5] Harvey has also stated that he did not see the movie The Wicker Man before the 1986 burn, so it played no part in his inspiration. ^[6]

JKPrivett 05:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

John Law Suing Larry Harvey, et. all

The 2000 to the Present section needs some elaboration and clarification. John Law is only debatably suing Harvey to get Burning Man into the public domain. Critics of Law have said he is actually in it for money. Both perspectives should be represented. Deramisan 14:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Deramisan

External links May 2007

I support the recent removal of most external links and would request a few words here before they are re-added. Articles should rarely have more than a handful of links, this one included. A long list is difficult to maintain, dilutes any benefit to the reader, and is not what this project is about. See Wikipedia:External links for more info on the community guidelines. Thanks! ∴ here…♠ 21:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

my view exactly Trapper 00:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

BLM

What is this BLM citation that gets referred to? The wiki link leads nowhere. --Theloniouszen 21:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bureau of Land Management. Fixed. adamrice 21:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Why no controversies?

For an event that has 40k something attendants at a price of 350 USD (former from this site, later from burning man site), meaning 14 million in sales, has no one seen the irony in a "hippy" event more being a yuppie/new age convention? I've got nothing against free expression, when its free.

And yes, I could state numerous other things that could be debated about how Burning Man continues to fail its 10 principles, but I don't feel like it. Zanduar 07:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your multiplication is off. Not all tickets are sold at the $350 level, some are significantly cheaper. It isn't a hippy event. Stating numerous things about it's failure to adhere to the 10 principles is probably fine, as long as they are cited and aren't original research. Eppythatcher 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell-tale sign someone hasn't been to burning man: they call it a "hippy festival". There are not that many "hippies" at burning man. A few here and there, but most people don't even come close to being "hippies". As a matter of fact, your likely to see as many punks at BM as hippies. And way more yuppies than either. Its never been a "hippy" event. Where did that come from? South Park? Or maybe peopel think only hippies burn stuff? Brentt 07:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

But hippies are the only people who say "radical self-expression" and then make paper mache puppets and run around nude on drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.226.30 (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

While Zanduar has clear biases, the person also makes an interesting point. I'd estimate that revenues to Black Rock City, LLC exceed $10 million/year. I took a look around and could find no evidence that BRC is a non-profit entity. There is also no meaningful public disclosure of finances. As a largely volunteer driven operation it would seem that BRC would go to pains to avoid looking like it has a profit motive lest it risk alienation of it's volunteer community.

There is also no meaningful public disclosure of finances? They're about as detailed as they get. BTW, I just removed a sentence from this section that was false when I checked the sources listed. ( Non-usable info from the artist was used to come up with what is obviously a nonsense statistic. Specifically, so-called <created gigawatts> were transmogrified <sic> into an energy metric by someone who doesn't know how to do the math/physics problem at hand.)--Elvey (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am new to this but would like to add this to the 'criticism' section. First question: if one is writing a 'criticism' how does one remain neutral? wikibeagle. Wikibeagle (talk) 14:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibeagle (talk • contribs) 14:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, segregated criticism sections are discouraged (see WP:CSECTION) -- it is considered better writing to integrate criticism within appropriate sections. It is, for instance, possible to incorporate details of the LLC in the section titled "1997 to present" and/or in the article Black Rock City, LLC. You must use reliable sources -- in other words, find published, mainstream news sources or academic journals that make the assertions. Don't do your own estimating or draw your own conclusions as that would violate no original research. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 02:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. More questions if you have the time: The format seems difficult when dealing with things that are "misleading by omission". For example, it's hard to site the lack of published information as a "reliable" source when, in fact, it's very daming. You'd think a multi-million dollar operation that acts like a volunteer driven non-profit would be eager to share it's successes as a non profit, but in this case they are silent. Given the large sums of money involved you'd expect careful and detailed accounting with no reason to hide anything. But everything published is hear-say and/or out of date. The business person in me knows what all this means and it's not good. Maybe this just isn't the right forum which is sad. Burning Man is a wonderful thing and it would be horrible to see it die because a few people got greedy handling millions of dollars. Oh well. Wikibeagle (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What is your point? -- BaldPark (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

To Wikibeagle: I understand what you are driving at and would recommend researching third party sources either on-line or at the library and see what other reliable sources have to say on this matter. Possibly you are not the only one who has raised these concerns and if you can cite published sources (making sure to preserve a neutral point of view by balancing them with responses from the LLC or others) then it would be a candidate for inclusion. Otherwise, lacking that, this wouldn't be the appropriate forum for publishing your questions. Perhaps better to find a blog or a newsgroup. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 03:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Careful and detailed accounting is published out their website every year in the Afterburn report and linked prominently from the main page. In 2008, total event related expenditures were $14,091,000. See here http://afterburn.burningman.com/08/financial_chart.html AndrewHires (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

AWESOME. REGARDING THE "COST" WRITE-UP ON THE MAIN ARTICLE... I came in here to this DISCUSSION tab to gripe that the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Man#Cost page was just one sentence, could be a lot more like HOW the ticket price (or price levels) are established, but then I was silenced by the URL above that Andrew Hires provided - Thanks Andrew! 2009 data is not up online yet, or at least, change the 08 to 09 in the URL does not work. Yet. Would love to see this annual event be more libertarian but with the BLM taking $1.1M in usage fees in the 08 report .. that's just wrong to do! Signed, (Peter/SanDiego) Vid2vid (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Burn Burning Man Movement

Is anyone else familiar with this postmodern artistic movement? I have searched the interweb high and low. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Checazoe (talk • contribs) 13:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Deaths

I was at Burning Man in 1996 and heard that there were 2 deaths that year. The deaths, at least, should be verifiable. [Attribution unknown]

I was also at Burning Man in 1996 and also heard there were two deaths that occurred after separate medivacs. Technically, the deaths didn't occur at Burning Man. —X S G 03:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

History vs Timeline

The history looks a little thin and the timeline has a lot of history stuff in it - anybody got any ideas on how best to clean it up? Trapper 18:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Burner (Burning Man) be merged here, as it is an unsourced article about a neologism associated with Burning Man. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Now done. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Burning Man in Popular Culture

The mention of "Festeroo" in the music section, to the best of my knowledge, is only a mockumentary done by Primus bassist Les Claypool. Electric Apricot is not an actual band that has released an album. The song, however, is a real song from the mockumentary soundtrack.

This was bothering me. I moved it from the music section to the films/TV section. 70.251.46.189 (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

decommodification

No Cash is allowed to be used inside.. except to buy tickets, ice, food, gas, schwag, bracelets, transportation.. etc.. other than that absolutely no cash. ? I don't get it. Is it notable to say that money is not allowed if everyone uses money to buy everything? --98.243.129.181 (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, I can explain. Only ice and drinks like coffee, mocha, tea can be bought inside, and only in one location. This is all. Nothing else sells inside of the Black Rock City. BaldPark (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have to correct myself. Also, gray water can be dumped for a fee, and supposedly water tanks can be filled, and an arrangement can be made about refueling at the airport. BaldPark (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree this is confusing. Cannot both be "no cash is allowed" and "except for T, U, V, W, X, Y, and Z", and rewording of the text is needed. Sounds to me like it is purchasing of unlicensed services which is prohibited. --71.168.124.11 (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

dates of festival

the article states

"The event starts on the Monday before, and ends on the day of, the American Labor Day holiday." - this needs some more clarification; what are the exact dates? Also most non Americans will not know what day labour day falls on. Regards JV-CDX (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Undescribability poetry in introduction

The fourth and fifth sentence of the article give the (sourced) tirades that "Trying to explain what Burning Man is to someone who has never been to the event is a bit like trying to explain what a particular color looks like to someone who is blind" and "Its[sic] like trying to explain sounds to a deaf person, taste to someone who can not taste. There is just a myriad of pointless analogies concerning the Burning Man Festival."

I think it's defensible to have these enthusiastic non-descriptions quoted somewhere in an encyclopedia article, but not in the introductory section, where a knowledge-hungry reader might first look for a clear and concise explanation. I'm sure it's also impossible to completely relay the feeling of being in Vancouver or in the middle of a hurricane to somebody who's never been there, but it's still possible to give a brief, rational description of what Vancouver and hurricanes are.

For comparison, see the facts-of-the-matter introduction to the Wikipedia article on Zen (a subject certainly more esoteric than Burning Man). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.155.151.233 (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. I'd go so far as to call it nonsense. Burning Man is not esoteric, it is not indescribable (unless one's intoxication impedes memory formation). It is perfectly suitable to be described concisely and without any vagueness. Not only that, but the quotes in question are essentially public relations testimonials, taken directly from the Burning Man website. Wikipedia is no place for such amorphous "information". See qualia for a suitable place for such descriptions.Fuzzform (talk) 07:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary hyperbole

"Organizers have noted, "Trying to explain what Burning Man is to someone who has never been to the event is a bit like trying to explain what a particular color looks like to someone who is blind." Similarly, Thomas Nagel has commented that "it's like trying to explain sounds to a deaf person, taste to someone who can not taste. There is just a myriad of pointless analogies concerning the Burning Man Festival."" Pointless analogies indeed. This is a perfect example of hyperbole. Burning Man is not a type of qualia. It is not something that cannot be described. It is an event with concrete happenings, and as such, it is subject to a concise description, as is everything else on Wikipedia. This hyperbolic nonsense description only serves to purposely confuse what occurs at Burning Man events. I'm removing the above text for the time being.Fuzzform (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

so annoying... Spur (talk) 08:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Milk Hotel

This page mentions that Neutral Milk Hotel referenced the Burning Man event in their song entitled Song Against Sex

The specific lyrics are:

"Deli markets with their flower stands And pretty girls and the burning men Hanging out on the hooks next to the window displays And I took out my tongue twice removed from my face"

Can anyone verify that these lyrics are a direct reference to the Burning Man event? I had always considered it to be a metaphor. If no evidence is provided, I suggest it be removed. --Skyfinity (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Done.--Elvey (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!:)!--Skyfinity (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words, etc

I'm not so great on policies, but the sentence "The project has inspired many to look for positive ways to get involved in the global warming and climate change movements by seeking out solutions." can't possibly belong here unsourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.243.219 (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Image with Non-Sexual/Non-Pornogrpahic Nudity Commented Out

So someone blocked out a image with the following code:

"I find this image inappropriate please edit to be safe viewing for Kids how use wikipedia"

"Image:Burning Man 228 (241613953) crop.jpg|thumb|upright|150px|A nude woman dancing at the 2006 Burning Man. Nudity is common at this eight-day annual event"

Image

It was added by Cteckerman on May 21st and it looks like it was removed on July 18th by new contributor Grdewar -- his only credited edit on English Wikipedia.

Obviously his comment about Wikipedia being safe for kids is incorrect, as the other page that picture is on is Nudity, which has several other photos. In addition, Burning Man is hardly an article or event that I would call appropriate for children -- so the idea of censoring the article to match is unusual.

So, should the picture stay or go? A quick peek at various Burning Man webpages on the net give the impression that Nudism/Naturism/Topfreedom/Bodypainting and other Clothing Optional philosophies and body art "stuff" are quite readily welcome and a big part of Burning Man, does that excuse a picture of a random naked woman on the page? If not, does it need to be deleted instead of commented out?

If it does, should we also add one of the various copyright free Bodypainting pictures from Burning Man to the article? KiTA (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course we don't censor nudity or even sexually explicit images on the grounds provided by Grdewar if the reasons for putting the image there in the first place was according to Wikipedia guidelines and editor consensus. There's clear precedent for this, so I assume we can readily reinstate that image. See WP:NOTCENSORED. __meco (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the image. While we're on the subject, perhaps this image may also be added/may be a more appropriate picture to add, as it covers both Nudity and Body painting, which seems to be a big "thing" as far as this event goes? KiTA (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need that photo anyway? I find it very inappropriate. Why not just say that people sometimes are nude instead of seizing the opportunity to put porno on Wikipedia? Nerd101010 (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Nudity does not equal "porno." Derekbd (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So many references

Burning man seems to be enough of an event that it's probably not worth listing every single time it's been mentioned in the history or printed material, since that part seems to be largely a list, shouldn't we cut it down to only things which use Burning Man significantly as part of the work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.152.4 (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Image nominated for deletion

Just to inform you commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Burning Man 228 (241613953) crop.jpg --MGA73 (talk) 19:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Environment and Environmental Impact

An admirable amount of effort is expended, apparently, to mitigate the environmental impact of this event. What I feel is lacking is a little more discussion of the natural environment itself. You will never see a more barren, lifeless place in the US, I am certain, except perhaps Bonneville, yet there is life, and all the more precious for its scarcity. Around the edges of the dry lake, if you drive a vehicle across the landscape, the tire marks may remain for years. Litter does not decompose at the rate it would elsewhere. I went to Black Rock Desert every summer I think from 1962 to 1978. We camped in the shelter of the one "island" in the middle of the "lake"--perhaps a quarter-acre mound of dust, fifteen feet high, held in place by sagebrush and dry grass. Lizards, snakes, and mice lived on that island, and we saw carcasses of rabbits and porcupines out on the open playa. We always stayed off the vegetation entirely, and I hope the BLM has cordoned off the island as well, to protect it. Well, this is not the place for original research, but I hope someone out there can fill in this gap. I have some pictures showing the environment without all the people, so I'll try to post something when I can. Perhaps the Black Rock Desert article can cover some of this, but the Burning Man article should also, particularly with respect to environmental impact.

Taquito1 (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The "island" is the Coyote Spring mound, formed by the presence of a spring at one time. Here is where I found it, in a great reference on the environment: Friends of Black Rock/High Rock. And here is a great example of mitigating the impact on the environment: Coyote Springs Restoration Project. Really, some of this will need to be in the Black Rock Desert article.Taquito1 (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

American Labour Day

Many countries celebrate something refered to as Labour Day at different times of the year (Sometimes varying between states, which I believe was the case historically in Australia and may still be the case). To counter ambiguity for non-American readers, I'd love to see the rule by which US Labour Day is determined either in the article text or as a link to an article to "Labour Day (USA)"

This raises another issue I am not qualified to comment on - the significance of the Labour Day closing of Burning Man. Is it purely practical (An example of extending a public holiday to include a weekend to maximise time off work at minimal dammage to holiday allowance) or is it an intentional socio-political statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.143.189 (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no socio-political statement to the event ending on Labor Day. The event has to end at some point and BLM permit requires an end-point. Teo del Fuego —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.0.223 (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What dates, and drugs?

The table of years/attendence/themes needs the month and days added to it. Right now it only has the years listed. Also, why is there no mention of the vast drug use at the event? I mean, let's face it, whether you personally take them or not, and whether you like it or not, drugs are a huge part of Burning Man. --71.131.153.174 (talk) 04:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no mention of drug use at Bonnaroo or Sturgis Motorcycle Rally either, and only a passing mention at Gathering of the Juggalos. These are all big parties. Some people like to take drugs at big parties. Does this really need to be mentioned? Yes, there is drug use at Burning Man, but there are MANY people for whom Burning Man isn't about drugs (Bonnaroo is arguably more drug focused than BM, but I don't think it should be mentioned there either). Look, I think it's great that people are having an uninhibited good time, but Wikipedia doesn't need to feed into media sensationalism about drugs at BM. I've been to other events where drug use is far more prevalent.192.104.39.2 (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I was at the "party" (which is all it really was then) in 1987 at Baker Beach, and there were more than 80 people there, and more than one object being burned. I'd just graduated from Berkeley the previous May and was up visiting with friends when they invited me to "some party at Baker Beach". Having been a camp follower of SRL and Target Video between 1983 and 1987, I remember being underwhelmed (the Gemini party on Divisadero was bigger) but I got drunk and had a good time...now regretting I didn't bring my camera, which then was loaded with infrared film, soon to be wasted at a Barrington Hall wine dinner (look it up.) --Joel J. Rane (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Drugs are NOT a"big part" of Burning Man. If ever there was a place where drugs were less needed to have a mind-altering experience, it would be Burning Man-an event which features the best art installations in America. Teo del Fuego-six-time participant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.0.223 (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Also worth noting that unlike events such as Bonnaroo, Burning Man has camps whose theme is specifically about being sober such as Camp Anonymous, which is probably one of the largest camps.--Paraphelion (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

burning man actually starts the Monday before Labor Day (not Sunday) for most participants. Early arrival (before the Monday before Labor Day) is for people needing to set up the camps, and permission is needed. Sometimes the gate does actually open for everyone on the Sunday a week before Labor Day, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.68.63.243 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

"Drugs are not a big part of Burning Man"? Hahahaha, oh my. It's hilarious to hear some corporate mouthpieces try and give a snap happy picture of their beloved money maker. Sorry, as anyone who's been to Burning Man can tell you...it is. 124.168.232.182 (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Sutter, your comments display a common blend of arrogance and ignorance about Burning Man. Are there drugs at Burning Man? Absolutely. Gather 50,000 in one spot dedicated to self-expression with prevailing winds of non-conformity and you will, indeed, find drugs. As an underemployed lawyer and artist who will soon attend for the seventh time in a row, I can tell you honestly that drugs are not a "big part" of Burning Man. They may be a big part of the lives of some of the people who attend, perhaps including your peer group, but with five different law enforcement agencies out there, some of whom patrol the area with undercover, costumed agents, night-vision goggles, etc. drug use is not a visible aspect of this event. Nor is integral to enjoying the experience. Yes, some people do drugs a Burning Man as they do at Bonaroo, Glastonbury, and other festivals, but the vast majority of the folks I interact with out there go to make, create, and experience art and a society that operates mostly without cash. Perhaps my experience is different from yours because I am in my late forties, responsible, and have no desire to drive 18 hours each way just to get stoned in the desert. Teo del Fuego

If drug use is as common as other non-necessary activities mentioned in the article, it should be mentioned (though no section dedicated to this). It is a significant way of influencing one's perception of an event. Anyone who is familiar with such events can infer that drug use will be common, but this is not the case for everyone. Drugs are mentioned several times throughout the [Glastonbury Festival] article, but not the [Bonnaroo Music Festival]. I have never been to Burning Man, but I would assume that a greater diversity of drugs are used, and that, for their users, they alter the experience in more significant ways than alcohol, the most common drug at events.

It was unnecessary for you to disparage drug use. There is surely excess, but drugs provide different angles through which we can relate to things, and some like to experiment with a greater diversity of angles than the sober mind alone allows; the festival lasts several days, and so I imagine that a significant proportion use drugs at least on one day, especially light drugs such as caffeine, marijuana, alcohol. :)

Love, --174.95.224.14 (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I also find it extremely odd that the article doesn't at least acknowledge the *reputation* of Burning Man being drug heavy. I think the Controversy section should include one of the most common criticisms of Burning Man - whether you agree with that criticism or not - that it's about drugs, drinking, sex and partying as much as it's about art and expression. And no, I'm not saying drugs, drinking, sex and partying are mutually exclusive from art and expression, but the average person who doesn't know much about Burning Man and is asked to describe it will probably not mention the artistic merit first and foremost, and I think that's worth acknowledging. It would also be easy to find sources to that effect, since almost every mainstream article on Burning Man mentions the reputation of - or actual - drug presence. --173.230.165.180 (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't an encyclopedic article be about facts more than unfounded rumors? Perhaps a short paragraph about lingering aspects of puritancial conservatism in America and how tales of nudity, sex, and drugs, are assumed by tabloid editors to sell more copies than articles about art, society and music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.2.233.211 (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The only way to make drugs at Burning Man encylopedic would be if there are busts, or other ddocumented events involving drugs. Wikipedia standards to permit entries first hand experience of it happening. The event takes place on public federal land, so it is only going to be openly acknowledged if cops or paramedics are involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:107:C852:870C:3622:F640 (talk) 05:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Impounding all money

There's a section in the 1997 summary in the table which says the Washoe Co. Sheriff takes over the gate and the role of "impounding all money." This was added way back in 2007 but I'm not sure that's accurate or quite what it means. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it could be phrased better. And it sure as heck could use a reference. But I believe it's probably true. And it refers to the the Sheriff confiscating the money from ticket sales. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Researched, corrected, cited. -- User:Nastrus (talk) 21 November 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 10:26, 22 November 2011 (UTC).

Sources

If you know of an academic, journalistic, or other credible source about the Burning Man event, anything in Category:Burning Man or the related Burner subculture please add it to User:Todfox/Burning Man/Sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Todfox (talk • contribs) 21:45, 20 October 2005‎(UTC)

arms up/down

i'm a newbie to burning man: I somehow realized, that the arms of the burning man are UP when burning, and down the rest of the time. is there any more info about that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.171.132.58 (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Arms are down during the event except for an hour or so before it is burned. Teo del Fuego —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.0.223 (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

History of the 10 principles

When were the 10 principles first promulgated? I haven't been able to find this information anywhere (I've asked friends, but they weren't sure about the exact year; 2002ish, maybe).192.104.39.2 (talk) 17:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Written in 2004 by Larry in Mazatlan, to aid the regional movement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKu1vS1_lHw Hu-lobo (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Concerns regarding the "Leave No Trace" policy"

The subsection entitled "Concerns regarding the "Leave No Trace" policy" does not seem to accurately summarize what is written there, as the "concerns" mentioned are not specifically raised with the concept of "Leave No Trace". What might be a better title for this subsection? Kansan (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Burning man 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Burning man 2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Much of the article lacks needed citations

I added a couple of "citation needed" tags. But that's just the start of the problem. There are entire sections (e.g. Bikes) which don't contain an entire reference. Where did this material come from? It needs to be sourced from somewhere.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of the material I have read is factually accurate and comes from the people who attend the event each year. I don't know that the information is necessarily improved because it was sourced to something published by an author who may have attended, or not, one time and wrote an article about it. For the section Harsh Climatic Conditions, I didn't cite to anything published, I just wrote what I know from attending seven years in a row. Perhaps a cite could be made to "This Is Burning Man" by B. Dougherty (sp?), which is a pretty accurate accounting of the event and its history. T d Fuego — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.118.142.160 (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

2012 attendance?

The attendance figures for the BM 2012 was tagged as dubious though it is sourced. If there is doubt about the figure, please say why. A 'dubious' tag is likely to stay on the page for years without intervention. The Huffington Post, The SF Chronicle, supports the figure. Thanks Span (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Music

Is this considered a music festival? Are there any djs, bands, dancespaces or sound systems setup? Music is mentioned once in the article. I was under the impression this was part of the psytrance scene in the states but the article doesn't mention it. - Shiftchange (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Not really a music festival. There are plenty of DJs and sound systems, and some live bands. All of that is organized by the participants; there's no master schedule of music, and nobody booking acts to play. While some people DO go specifically for the music, for the majority, music isn't the focus of the event. There's been hardly any psytrance in recent years (although I've met some people at Burning Man who are part of the psytrance scene). Plantdrew (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Celebs and other Notables Attending Burning Man

Sergei Brin and Larry Page attended Burning Man in the late 90s just as Google was getting underway and it was influential in the process. (From The Google Story by David A. Vise and Mark Malseed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.188.21 (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most of American "celebs and notables" attended BM at least at some point :) I would be impossible to track all of them down. probably makes sense to mention it on Brin's page, not here.Cosainsé (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Legality of Burning Man photography restrictions

I can confirm that Burning Man has absolutely no legal right to prohibit your personal photographs, or even professional photographs (as the judge explained to my lawyer and I), from being used in absolutely any way you desire. Be they of drug use or nudity either. I've received a "cease and desist" notice emailed to me (i'm Australian) from their company towards my Facebook photography profile and later photography website profile. Responding to these was as easy as "please go screw yourselves" (much to my lawyers later chagrin). Upon receiving a seemingly legal notification through the post, again demanding a cease and desist or legal action would be taken, I talked to my lawyer who initiated "harassment stoppage" officially towards their organisation. Despite this, we receive a few further notices, all which my lawyer replied with his own replies to stop sending me these notifications. WE then initiated legal proceedings towards them, seeking a court ordered stop to their harassment. Hilariously they still thought they had any ground to stand on and kept at it.

After 8 months, they were pretty much straight away found by the judge to have no legal basis for their complaints and had no legal right to tell me what to do with my private property and (now) copyrighted material as the land was still public, even though rented for a festival, and my buying a ticket was in NO WAY A LEGAL CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT TO TERMS OF SERVICE. This is according to both US and Australian law.

Those in my photographs were willingly photographed, nude and all, and had knowingly consented. She stated that being at the festival was no grounds to have ownership over the photographs either, as it was still a public space and photography was allowed. We are currently chasing up their company for court costs, which they've now mysteriously stopped replying to emails for.

I'd just like to let everyone here know that if you want to take photographs at Burning Man, either as a private or professional photography, you're completely within your rights to keep any and all photographs you take and use them in any way you wish. Including for profit or for public dissemination. If someone could include this information in the articles section on photography restrictions, id would be great. 124.168.241.91 (talk) 08:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Harlequin

No criticism anywhere

I'm surprised that BM has not incurred any criticism notable enough for inclusion in WP, especially given the impact on the playa, the exposure in popular culture in the 2000s, incidents, issues with local and federal authorities, and the skyrocketing ticket prices making the event much more of a weekend warrior, techno-yuppie, or trust fund playground rather than the inclusive art-hippie community it seems to suggest it wanted to be. The point is, there is no mention of any criticism of the shiny happy place that is BM, and that's hard to believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.190.11 (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

If you know of any reliable sources discussing those complaints, that would be appreciated. As is discussed in the article, Burning Man is a leave-no-trace event, so it's impact on the Playa itself is debatably fairly low. The impact on the surrounding area, on the other hand, is a lot more significant, but again, sources are needed. There was a lot of discussion in local news sources last year about a lawsuit between Pershing County and Black Rock City LLC.. It's hard to know how much weight to give that kind of thing in the article. It was, as far as I know, mostly resolved to both parties' satisfaction.[1] There have been a few cases like that over the years. Should they be included? The issues with ticket price and inclusiveness have been heavily discussed as well, but most of what I've seen has been in blogs, forums, or other unusable sources that shouldn't be used in Wikipedia articles. Grayfell (talk) 06:49, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with BMIR

There doesn't seem to be enough here for its own article. There is also only one WP:RS cited and notability seems a bit thin. There just doesn't seem to be enough here for its own article. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This comment looks like it's about a proposal to merge Burning Man, which is a large and detailed article, into BMIR (Burning Man Information Radio), which is 84 words long plus References. In fact, it's the other way around.The proposal banner is on BMIR and says "It has been suggested that this article be merged into Burning Man". With that I can agree. --Thnidu (talk) 07:08, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. With my bias as article creator noted, BMIR should continue stand on its own. KUT — a similar article I created back in 2006 – could have began on University of Texas at Austin. In the eight years since, though, it has gained more than enough content to justify an article. (Further, I stubbed KUT with even less content than that of BMIR.) jareha ^(comments) 02:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree. The comparison seems a little tenuous to me. KUT is a well-funded public radio operation serving a large population beyond UT itself. In contrast, BMIR is just another component of the Burning Man event. If the material ends up getting expanded like KUT, we can always split it off again later. jxm (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Support. Body text of BMIR is only three sentences long, even though the article is 8 months old. Far too short to merit its own article. Unless the article grows substantially in the next 2 months, there's no conceivable reason to keep it as a separate article, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 09:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This sentence makes no sense

"By 1996, the land-speed-record-holding open playa had grown to a critical mass with 8,000 attendees and was deemed too dangerous (marked with numerous vehicular incidents) to continue in the same way with unrestricted driving."

The "open playa" holds the "land-speed-record"? What does that mean and why is it relevant to the fact that the event had a lot of traffic accidents?

It's an ironic reference to an unrelated bit of local history trivia - see Land speed record. The Black Rock desert playa was the location of the most recent highest land speed achievements, which were in 1997. This silly statement should be changed to give a better context. jxm (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Explain "land-speed-record-holding open playa"

Section 1997 to present starts:

1997 marked another major pivotal year for the event. By 1996, the land-speed-record-holding open playa had grown to a critical mass with 8,000 attendees and was deemed too dangerous (marked with numerous vehicular incidents) to continue in the same way with unrestricted driving.

This comes out of nowhere. What "land-speed-record-holding open playa"? For that matter, what's a playa? And whoever fixes this, please disassemble that too-many-hyphen-containing excessively-multiple noun pile. --Thnidu (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that wording is bizarre and I've rephrased it. Sfba (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but what IS Burning Man?

This article really does not explain Burning Man and what it's about. I went to the article trying to find this out and I'm just as confused now as I was before looking at the article. ---Dagme (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Chsnyc (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

See §Principles:

Because of the variety of goals fostered by participatory attendees, known as "Burners," Burning Man does not have a single focus. Features of the event are subject to the participants and include community, artwork, absurdity, decommodification, and revelry. Participation is encouraged.

--Thnidu (talk) 07:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

this doesnt help me understand what they're doing out in that desert. i spent a good 10 minutes reading through this article and the only conclusion i can come to is that it's a festival where a bunch of hippies go to get high and look at art. that's probably not true, and there's probably a lot more structure to this than they would like to allude with their principles. those details are what this article should have in it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:7580:3A9:BDFD:53D1:6234:88E2 (talk) 02:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you hit close to the mark. Despite the ostensible focus on various principles, much of which is sincere, the majority of burners are hippies or wannabe hippies who go to get high and look at (mostly very bad) art. 124.33.208.179 (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)Thu

OK, there are yahoos in every community but they are hardly "the majority of burners." But this is rather beside the point, which is that there has to be SOME reason thousands of people spend thousands of dollars to go out to the desert, spend a week building things, run elaborate "shows" (for want of a better word) in horrific conditions for a week, and then tear it all down as if they had never been there. (I'm not speaking here of the people who get there on Monday but of the people who BUILD Black Rock City the week before it opens.) It is a fair question to ask "OK, what IS that reason?" and to expect that an article about Burning Man -- a very LONG article -- should be able to answer it.

My contribution is that, however hippy-ish the participants (ironically, any burner will tell you that they HATE hippies), however drug crazed the yahoos, however bad (or good) the art, Burning Man is fundamentally a spiritual retreat. Even if you go for the art or for the rave or just to be with your friends or even for the drugs, you will probably come away profoundly changed, possibly without ever realizing exactly what the transformation entailed. And if you go multiple times, the transformation builds on itself year after year. It is a breathtaking vision that Burning Man, that Rave In The Desert, Disneyland on the Playa, is actually transforming 10s of thousands of people. It may well be the cultural shift that changes the course of the 21st century the way the hippy movement changed the course of the 20th.

But, no, I cannot cite a single erudite book or article that makes this point. And, as I understand it, my personal experience cannot be used as a citation (unless I get it published in a book). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davemenc (talk • contribs) 16:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

"Leaving No Trace" 2 times in the article

Moin, the "Leaving No Trace" policy has 2 sections in this article. The second one should be merged into the first. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The first instance (mentioned as one of the principals) is explained below. Raquel Baranow (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course, but still doesn't make a lot of sense. Generally we avoid that. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Template?

Hi, do you think it'd make sense to create a Wiki template for topics surrounding Burning Man? There's a lot to cover and it'd give a bit more of an overview. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I liked it enough to just be WP:BOLD and start building a footer WP:NAVBOX which is here: User:Grayfell/Burning Man template. Way, way too many of the associated articles are teetering on the brink of being deleted, so I kept getting distracted trying to clean-up WP:COPYVIOs and primary-sourced junk. I might contribute to it later, but by all means, if anybody's so inclined, pick up where I left off. Grayfell (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's good enough to start-off. Moved to Template:Burning Man as a navbox. Feedback welcome. Grayfell (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Death

Wasn't there a death that occurred at one of these effigies a year or two ago? I seem to remember the news making a big deal of it. (I think a drunk man ran into the fire?) Maybe, it was some other event, but I thought that it was indeed this "Burning Man" event. Does anyone know for sure. If so, that information should be added into this article. Unless it's already there, and I somehow missed it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Legal status and Controversy

We should add discussion regarding FCC issues, how off road vehicle licensing works relative to Nevada law and the event "DMV", potential FAA issues due to the number of participants use the airport during the year vs. airport classification (has the increased growth and passengers over the years altered the airport classification/regulation requirements). Firearm restrictions and NV concealed carry law would be interesting to discuss, past dive by shooting range history. How about the recent ban of "laser pointers" and not simply the "inappropriate use of laser pointers".

The history of restriction of dogs and other animals aren't covered. In previous years, there's photos of Camels at the event. That would be interesting history about animals at BM and regionals. Controversy of Sexually operated businesses (SOB) could be an interesting read.

Child policy (sub 13 free), public nudity (indecent exposure laws) population caps possibly violated with the uncontrolled number of sub 13'ers, and how the tax exempt status (501c3) influences the event should be noted. I think if more than two children sub 13 years old were given tickets, that would equate to a gift of approximately $780 (2015 ticket price), that would probably raise flags (like IRS 1099 recordings?); it removes the ability to sell a ticket to a paying person to a quickly sold out event.

Does the Burning Man Foundation (501c3) violate tax law by funneling so much money into this commercial event or can it be treated somehow as a "fundraiser" / fund generating event.

Can someone write on the drug culture at BM and arrests? Could the whole organization meet criteria for a domestic terrorist organization? Potential RICO act violations?

If drug use by some people qualifies an entire city as a domestic terrorist organization, all of San Francisco would have to be arrested. The event takes place on federal land, so federal drug laws apply and drug use is very hidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.144.209.8 (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Could someone discuss permitting further with BLM? could any other joe apply to the BLM for a special event license the exact same time as BM the following year?

How the "DMV" issues vehicle licenses should be addressed and compared to off road policy for NV http://nvohv.com/faqs/ What qualifies as a brake light)?

How about the Leave No trace policy and how Burners relieve themselves of garbage accrued; pay local native americans, dump in local business dumpsters, sometimes ditch on the side of the road.

I'd like to see more about the controversy of the event; history and anarchist/libertarian roots. This isn't an event advertisement. Barfbag666 (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Bad job of explaining the overall point of burning man in the intro

Additionally, it isn't a festival. "Festival" implies you are paying for entertainment and that somebody cleans up after you. Here you get a camping space and porta-potties, and that's it. You are the entertainment.198.144.209.8 (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Burning Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No clear reference to the size of first wooden man

[...]in 1986 when Larry Harvey, Jerry James, and a few friends met on Baker Beach in San Francisco[8] and burned a 9-foot (2.7-meter) wooden man [...]. When Grauberger stopped organizing it, Harvey "picked up the torch" so to speak, and ran with it.[9] He and Jerry James built an 8-foot (2.4-meter) wooden effigy for 1986 [...].

Probably there should be some external sources added as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.52.202 (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Burning Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with BMIR

Closing year long merge discussion as no consensus. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adding this section, since the templates exist, but the section does not. My opinion is the articles should be merged. No other articles link to BMIR and the sparse content in that article is not notabel enough for its own article. Rayukk (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement. 66.25.92.95 (talk) 22:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Content is sparse and additional material is likely to apply equally to the main Burning Man article Condodetainee77 (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with the above, as BMIR operates as a separate radio station for the other 350 days of the year, regardless of the status of burning man. Ultimaxx9 (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Disagree too, it's a unique radio station, deserves its own article. Raquel Baranow (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, keep the articles separate. -- Callinus (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, it's broadcasting year round, not just in August-Sept. deisenbe (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burning Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091109231856/https://www.nevadadot.com/reports_pubs/state_maintained/pdf/sm_book.pdf to http://www.nevadadot.com/reports_pubs/state_maintained/pdf/sm_book.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burning Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120509040545/http://www.burningman.com/on_the_playa/airport/airport.html to http://www.burningman.com/on_the_playa/airport/airport.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Burning Man IS a festival (same with regionals) and spiritual / religious dogma base

Please see the Special Recreational Permit for this event

DR_Burning_Man.pdf.

The event is declared a "festival" by the authorities that allow it on the premise that it resides on. This is the same for regionals. Do not call it anything else based on festival goer lack of NPOV. Google the definition of "festival" and you get:

fes·ti·val /ˈfestəvəl/ noun noun: festival; plural noun: festivals

a day or period of celebration, typically a religious commemoration.

"a tabulation of saints' days and other festivals"

synonyms: fair, carnival, fiesta, jamboree, celebrations, festivities, fest More "the town's fall festival"

•holy day, feast day, saint's day, commemoration, day of observance "fasting precedes the festival" •an annual celebration or anniversary. "highlights of this year's pumpkin festival"

•an organized series of concerts, plays, or movies, typically one held annually in the same place. "numbers that are still heard at traditional jazz festivals"

Burning Man is the items in bold above. It's also debatable if Burning Man or "Burnerism" is considered a non theistic religion similar to Non Theistic Satanism (e.g. LeVayan) having many of the same aspects.

LaVeyan Satanism

Many festival goers will state "they're only principles" but they're applied in a similar commandment, rule, tenant, style "to live by" dogma as religions; the man )'( is kind of a deity or used similar as non theistic (or atheistic) Satanists use imagery of Satan.

Festival goers (AKA Burners) will try and bend words but this is not NPOV nor is Wikipedia a place to promote dogma. Another example of this is "Black Rock Rangers" provide security guard functions as described in the SRP however again in some kind of festival goer and parrot like response often it's said "they're not security guards"; they provide security functions hence Black Rock Ranger would be synonymous for "security guard". If we did a find and replace of "Black Rock Rangers" swapping in "security guards" the article would still be accurate. However, I'd have to read the SRP but Black Rock Rangers really describes the group the event states will provide certain functions. Kind of like saying "Blackwater" or a security company. A "ranger" at the event is a member of said Black Rock Ranger security organization even if they are volunteer based. The "Black Rock Rangers" consist of security guards would also likely be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.29.191.200 (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Like, groovy, man. That's deep. E Eng 12:35, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

B Man's Fly Ranch...

so non-profit BM bought nearby Fly Ranch? ... and they got BIGGGG plans for it.. just 'not yet'. my thoughts, input?? dont do ANYTHING to it..leave it alone!!!

ok it has non-stop geothermal potential.. do it.. improve or re-establish existing facil's.. need a example? look to the Geysers in N. Calif or the area facil near Salton Sea, S. Calif or just over the border in Mex.. doing the same QUITE successfully. And you'll have elec for the yrly festival too!! no more gas/diesel generations, to come!!! wow, what a concept!!

and of course, does it have potential for wind power?? if so, do it.. though ya all need to check you're not HARMING any birds, etc that come into the area's wetlands.. yea wetlands.. has a bunch... can you just see some 'future' eco community there?? yea right.. NOT! 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:DCD0:A28E:EBE0:63DB (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Radical! E Eng 12:36, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Burning Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The Wicker Man

OK, so Harvey is at pains to distance himself from The Wicker Man and "debunks" it as an inspiration; but what has Mary Grauberger to say? She did start burning wooden men on Midsummer, which Harvey has admitted gave him the idea to do likewise. Did anybody ask her opinion? Nuttyskin (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

A Second Simpson's Reference for the Popular Culture section

It was a long time ago so I don't remember much are the title or date of the episode, but there was an episode about some environmentalists chaining themselves to trees so as to prevent their being cut down. Shortly before this event, one of their leaders gives a few reasons why it's more important to participate then to pursue other activities with "more important than Burning Man". That's it - a vocal cameo appearance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4E02:3C3E:B023:9FDF:BB56:4924 (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Burning Man 2013 Coyote (10227012075).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Wickerman

I could have sworn I posted this already. In the Spring of 1989, the English 1A professor at City College of San Francisco assigned the film The Wickerman for the final paper. I did not know that the actor had actually died in the film. I often have responses to films as if they were reality. To me there was no difference than if special effects had been used. Not owning a television or vcr, I viewed the film at a computer programming classmate's apartment, where I also programmed a short assignment on his Apple or Mac.

Even if the people attributed for having started Burning Man, outside of a high school education, had not seen the movie directly, the mid-late 1980s development of Burning Man coincided with the English Professor's tenure at a public college in the same city. Given that San Francisco is not the largest city, it is possible of a good number of students, others and herself during her tenure to have had knowledge of the movie which could have been imparted to others through a plethora of levels and methods, such as the viewing of the movie as someone else's apartment or even the early world wide web.

Preclusion of the introduction of influence from the movie on the development of the event, regardless of subtlety or origin, cannot be established, definitively. I feel confident in typing that, if what I typed reads correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:EFC0:105:612C:FBF9:AA0A:955E (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC) I read there is a new ban on animals. Bringing his dog was one draw from the one individual that ever told me he attended the event and a reason I would raise an eyebrow. I would wonder if all of the bans came about as a result of incidents requiring the new regulations.

Like most social events stemming from SF, including raves, this one has also never appealed to me. There also seems to be an element in the name of the event or other than almost screams an unofficial ban of me.

I have seen the depictions. I guess I became concerned that despite the origin or inspiration, what correlations might exist in others' minds in conjugation could not be prevented. And, on some level, to me that has been a major warning sign that problems could transpire.

When ravers were starting to get into ambient trance scenes, the "trance" was a warning to steer clear. Sure, self-expression can be good. However, I drove through the town Lynn, MA. When everyone all of the sudden goes from feeling oppressed to expressing their individuality at the same time, the result of the extreme reaction can be as negative on a level as the environment that let to the extreme reaction.

People often want change and want it right now. However, change and heeling take time and often dramatic changes can have dire consequences. I drove through a town that seemed to still not have recovered from riots nearly 60 years earlier.

For people promoting no rules to implement rules would suggest there were some serious enough events that those people would enforce bans and regulations contradicting the very underlying declaration of purpose.

They drove me away a long time ago with their new laws and ill treatment of me. Given what I had witnessed, heard and suspected all of which typically would not be as bad as reality, I am not more unhappy for my inability to experience whatever they are promoting, because I would probably just be sitting on the sidelines trying to figure out why I was there in the first place and why the people were doing the things they were doing because to me it never looked like anyone was actually having fun or truly enjoying themselves. Again, initially, I was somewhat older than people in the same situation and have goals that I concerned necessary to accomplish and were my top priority.

I didn't mean to make this personal. But, if they are going out of their way to not appear to be associated with something and it is clear that is what some my think, then it would seem the time to revisit the idea. If something indicates that down the line things may go terribly awry based on the name alone, given what I have experienced in life, I would by all means break to think if I was the person leading the charge.

I could never figure out why some of these young people were looking in the directions they were and going to specific events in that youthful attempt and age old experience of "finding themselves". However, if one is so busy finding themselves, they will find themselves without the experience and education they need to not find themselves in a world where opportunities have narrowed a upper bound of none.

I literally felt necessary to get away from all social activities from the young adults in order to complete my first Bachelor's. I so no other way I could complete my degree other than literally lock myself away. However, once that door has closed, it clamps down tight around one. When the result of failure has been left with the threat of death as the alternative, one many chose or not chose to complete the necessary work and task at hand.

Also, that image from 2004 looks like a woman on fire, not a man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:EFC0:105:612C:FBF9:AA0A:955E (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not a discussion page on a blog. What does the extended rant above have to do with this article, other than to note a possible influence of the 1973 movie on the burning man event (which others have also pointed out)?

74.95.43.253 (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's a video from Burning man 2000 that could be migrated to commons

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPuEK1vKGbM Victor Grigas (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

^ One more Pagan Orgy, Sex Drugs and Glow Sticks
^ Jiffy Lube
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity
^ (Doherty, Brian (2006). This Is Burning Man. Benbella Books. pp. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-932100-86-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help))
^ (Doherty, Brian (2006). This Is Burning Man. Benbella Books. pp. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-932100-86-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help))
^ Media Myths

[Illicit_Activities-1] One more Pagan Orgy, Sex Drugs and Glow Sticks

[2] Jiffy Lube

[3] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity

[4] (Doherty, Brian (2006). This Is Burning Man. Benbella Books. pp. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-932100-86-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help))

[5] (Doherty, Brian (2006). This Is Burning Man. Benbella Books. pp. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-932100-86-0. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help))

[6] Media Myths

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Links cont, proposed rewrite & Theme camps

Images of/at Burning Man

Category: Burning Man

Sources Collection

Archive

Letter to Bman's Media Team

NPOV complaint by 65.182.172.87

Is this still disputed??

Dialogue w/ Burning Man Media Team 2

Archived Village pump discussion

Archived discussion: Burning Man, images, GFDL, and unusual image restrictions

Add new comments here

Burning Man: Beyond Black Rock

Reorder / Nudity Sex and Drugs

Nudity, sex And drugs -> Illicit Activities

clean up

citations tag

Listing Theme Camps

Jan/Feb 2008 clean up and expansion

This article needs some serious work

Airport travel brochure--inappropriate style

Sourcing and Purging

Policing and Regulations moving second paragraph out until cited

Philosophizing without attributing

Published material on sexuality at BM

Clean-up

Info about German soldier executions sounds speculative

Quotation Punctuation

(Ahem) encyclopedic cleanup

Green Tortoise

see also section: Rainbow Gathering etc.

A "festival" or "event"?

Questionable history moved from article

John Law Suing Larry Harvey, et. all

External links May 2007

BLM

Why no controversies?

Burn Burning Man Movement

Deaths

History vs Timeline

Merger proposal

Burning Man in Popular Culture

decommodification

dates of festival

Undescribability poetry in introduction

Unnecessary hyperbole

Neutral Milk Hotel

Weasel words, etc

Image with Non-Sexual/Non-Pornogrpahic Nudity Commented Out

So many references

Image nominated for deletion

Environment and Environmental Impact

American Labour Day

What dates, and drugs?

Impounding all money

Sources

arms up/down

History of the 10 principles

"Concerns regarding the "Leave No Trace" policy"

File:Burning man 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Much of the article lacks needed citations

2012 attendance?

Music

Celebs and other Notables Attending Burning Man

Legality of Burning Man photography restrictions

No criticism anywhere

Proposed merge with BMIR

This sentence makes no sense

Explain "land-speed-record-holding open playa"

Yes, but what IS Burning Man?

"Leaving No Trace" 2 times in the article

Template?

Death

Legal status and Controversy

Comment

External links modified

No clear reference to the size of first wooden man

External links modified

Proposed merge with BMIR

External links modified