Talk:Harmony, Florida/Archive 1

Archive 1

External Links review

I've reviewed the EL in this article, and conclude that several are in violation of the WP:EL guideline.

• The official site is understandable, but one other was a duplicate of that link
• The restaurant is pure advertising, as is the Golf Preserve and Festivals
• The CCD is a close call, but provides some useful info, even if bordering on advertising
• There's not much at Commons, and I didn't see anything worth linking
• Harmony Residents Group is unquestionably on the avoided list
• Events is more advertising, as it the Institute link
• History sounded promising, but it is an archived link, which may be acceptable for a reference, but not an EL
• Starwood Capital site - pure advertising
• The mission of The Harmony Institute and A&E TV show "House of Dreams" - same comment as for History--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving discussion here

A discussion of this article started on my talk page. It was fine when it started, but it has becoem a full-blown discusion of this article and belongs here. I'll copy and paste the contents intot he next section, and urge participants to carry on here. For atttribution purposes, here is the link tot he original discussion. User_talk:Sphilbrick#Anonymous_Editor_Vandalism_as_of_07.2F23.2F2012.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved discussion

Thank you again for your help with the previous "Anonymous Editor Vandalism" issue Sphilbrick. I am sorry to trouble you once more with the same nonsense. If you are tired of this, I fully understand. Please recommend another admin that I should approach if you would prefer not to deal with this anymore.

It looks like the latest "anonymous" has a new "name". It is "Logiharmonyone". Apparently he or she wants to continue the edit war on the Harmony, Florida page.

I attempted to get an explanation for Logiharmonyone's changes, to no avail.

Here is what was in place since 2008 prior to Logiharmonyone's edits:

   In 2005 the development of Harmony was purchased by 
   Starwood Capital Group. Since then several existing 
   amenities in Harmony have been removed and many others 
   promised by the original developer have either been 
   rescinded or remain unfulfilled. These actions on the 
   part of the new developers have created much 
   controversy and consternation on the part of long 
   standing Harmony residents. The marketing promises that 
   were apparently broken or remain unfulfilled by 
   Starwood / Harmony Development Company have been 
   documented in detail by a residents website with an 
   open newsgroup.[4]

   4. ^ "Town of Harmony Residents Open Newsgroup". 
      Harmony Residents. March 5, 2006 .... Retrieved 
      2008-08-12.

This time "Logiharmonyone" has no stated rationale in the edit log for the changes.

What was removed is historically accurate. Whereas what was added is not only inaccurate, but it also looks like it was written by a middle-school kid with a personal ax to grind.

Once again it would appear that an anonymous person like "Logiharmonyone" wants to revise the history of Harmony. It seems that the primary purpose of the edit is to undermine the credibility of the Harmony newsgroup. The newsgroup not only serves the civic purpose of connecting citizens to public officials in and around Harmony, but it also serves to document ongoing issues with the development and the developer.

This is not the first time. This is actually the 4th time that the paragraph referenced above has been tampered with. The initial occurrence was in 2010 when you helped with the Harmony, Florida page for the first time Sphilbrick.

Here is what another Wikipedia moderator (Phantomsteve) wrote about the 2010 changes:

   RD2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive 
   material: No evidence that the cited website is all the 
   work of one person - personal attack

Prior to the current changes, it can be proven (with IP addresses) that the President of Harmony Development Company (or someone using his computer) actually expunged all references critical of the developer from the Harmony, Florida page on December 7th of last year. You can see it in the Harmony, Florida page history. When discovered, this same person scrambled to undo the changes without realizing that everything was being logged by Wikipedia.

Can you please take another look into this Sphilbrick? GeorgeSchiro (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've got a meeting shortly, I'll try to look into it after the meeting--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I urge you to avoid using the word "vandalism" in situations such as this. That word has a specific meaning, and does not generally apply to all edits that might deserve removal. The most recent edit was problematic, and I undid it, but I specifically did not use the Rollback tool, which is intended for pure vandalism.

Wikipedia does not prohibit the inclusion of negative information, indeed, an article with only positive information when information with a negative connation exists can be problematic. However, addition of claims about "disgruntled" residents has to meet a few hurdles, one of which is support by a reliable source. That wasn't present, so I reverted to the prior version. However, removal of material that does not conform to policy is not automatically deemed a vadlism edit. In many cases, they made by well-meaning individuals.

This isn't my area of strength, expertise or interest. I have the page on my watch list, but I have 8000 pages on my watchlist, so it is easy for a single edit to escape my attention. I will leave it on my watch list, please feel free to post to me as you did if I miss something, and if it becomes a time-consuming issue, I'll poke around for another admin with more experience in the area.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will endeavor to use a more neutral tone when bringing such activity to the attention of admins in the future. I have little doubt that it will happen again. And NP, about the page watch. I have no problem keeping an eye on it and letting you know. Thank you Sphilbrick. BTW, are you an actuary? -- GeorgeSchiro (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am an actuary.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I see that my edits were removed from the Harmony Florida page. I'm a bit unsure why my edits were removed, yet the edits by GeorgeSchiro are deemed permissible. The below excerpt from the page is nothing more than the opinion of GeorgeSchiro who is in no way a neutral party given the fact that (due to his irrational actions) he has been barred from all property owned by the developer of the community and thus has an axe to grind. The citation for this section, "Town of Harmony Residents Open Newsgroup", is a Google group created and moderated by GeorgeSchiro and in no way can be viewed as a reliable or independent source. In fact, if you were to read the posts in the Google group (though I would not suggest you waste your time), 99% of the contributors disagree with GeorgeSchiro's opinions.

   In 2005 the development of Harmony was purchased by 
   Starwood Capital Group. Since then several existing 
   amenities in Harmony have been removed and many others 
   promised by the original developer have either been 
   rescinded or remain unfulfilled. These actions on the 
   part of the new developers have created much 
   controversy and consternation on the part of long 
   standing Harmony residents. The marketing promises that 
   were apparently broken or remain unfulfilled by 
   Starwood / Harmony Development Company have been 
   documented in detail by a residents website with an 
   open newsgroup.[4]

   4. ^ "Town of Harmony Residents Open Newsgroup". 
      Harmony Residents. March 5, 2006 .... Retrieved 
      2008-08-12.

The same applies to the following entry on the page:

In 2012 long-standing Harmony residents were still awaiting these promised amenities (for almost a decade) [11]:
Businesses in Town Square / Thriving Commercial / Vibrant Town Center
Clubhouse Facilities for Recreation
Equestrian Club (for all resident horse owners)
Farmers Market
Lake Club
Open Access (to all 11,000 acres)
Organized Field Sports
Town Entry Spring House

Bottom line is, if my edits were not considered valid, the two above made by GeorgeSchiro should not be considered valid either.

Logiharmonyone (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You raise some important concerns. I cannot address at the moment, not because it is unimportant, but because I need to review much of the history to make sure that the subject is being treated neutrally.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

SPhilbrick, please bear in mind that while "Logiharmonyone" prefers to remain anonymous, it is my understanding that he is a vocal supporter of Starwood / Harmony Development Company. Based on a recent email I received, I believe that he is a current or former paid vendor of Starwood / Harmony Development Company. Yes, I am a customer of Starwood / Harmony Development Company. But who better to offer an alternative perspective on what the developer has been doing in Harmony all these years (ie. "the other side of the story")? It is obvious that the vast majority of edits to the Harmony page over the years have been by anonymous developer agents. In fact, I am convinced that the Wikipedia Harmony page was originally created by Starwood people.

Logiharmonyone wrote:

   the fact that (due to his irrational actions) he has 
   been barred from all property owned by the developer

What irrational actions? Clearly "Logiharmonyone" is referring to the "Trespass Warning" letter issued to me without due process and as a direct response to my exposing the false edits to the Wikipedia page about Harmony (what I believe to be vandalism). Those edits were done from the computer of Shad Tome, President of Harmony Development Company. This is a provable fact. It is also a fact that what was removed from the Harmony page on Wikipedia by Mr. Tome (and later inaccurately altered by "Logiharmonyone") is also provably true.

What "Logiharmonyone" didn't tell you SPhilbrick is that while I have been reporting the facts about the failings of Starwood / Harmony Development Company since 2006, I was barred from developer property 2 days after reporting the truth about the Harmony Development president's removal from Wikipedia of provable facts that have been in place since 2008. Thus "being barred" was the direct result of the "irrational act" of blowing the whistle on a multi-billion dollar real-estate company.

Many witnesses have come forward with testimonials that confirm that the so-called "irrational actions" mentioned by "Logiharmonyone" are totally fabricated. Starwood / Harmony Development has not a single witness to support its allegations.

This is a "David and Goliath" scenario SPhilbrick. Please read Developer Dirty Tricks - CONFIRMED and The Empire Strikes Back articles in the HarmonyFL Google newsgroup. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have and I will produce any documentation that you may require. I will also provide my phone number and my email address as needed. There are also several other Harmony residents who will confirm what I have written.

Please note also that while many people have posted in the HarmonyFL newsgroup (all using their real names since that is a requirement), "Logiharmonyone" has never written a single word to refute any allegation against the developer. In fact, while the newsgroup currently has 80 members, "Logiharmonyone" is not among them. And the 99% that "Logiharmonyone" refers to are 3 people (all with a special relationship with the developer or with realtor connections). There are at least that many who have posted in support of what I have been writing. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I will try to look into this over the weekend.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to follow-up on this inquiry. I respect your time and this is certainly not as important to me as it appears to be to GeorgeSchiro, but allowing GeorgeSchiro's edits to remain on this page are contrary to Wikipedia policies for the reasons I mentioned previously: 1) GeorgeSchiro is not a neutral party capable of presenting unbiased factual information due to his public disdain for and legal issues with the company developing Harmony, which I'm told resulted in him being legally barred from Harmony Development property due to his harassment of a college intern regarding previous edits to the Harmony, Florida Wikipedia entry that he deemed "vandalism"; 2) The citations GeorgeSchiro presents as support for his contributions to the page come from a Google forum created and moderator by him, wherein he makes personal posts he terms as "articles" and presents them as factual history. The Harmony, Florida entry would be far more credible without GeorgeSchiro's editorial comments appearing there.Logiharmonyone (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I also appreciate your attention to this SPhilbrick (please let me know if Stephen is OK or if you would prefer Mr. Philbrick or just SPhilbrick). This must certainly be one of your least pleasant activities on Wikipedia. I am very sorry about that. "Logiharmonyone" claims that this is "not as important" to him, yet here he is. Go figure!

"Logiharmonyone" refers to my edits as "contrary to Wikipedia policies", yet he fails to include his own edits and the edits of other developer agents in his assessment. Please bear in mind that the Harmony page was originally setup by developer agents (I can't prove it since they're all anonymous like "Logiharmonyone", but it is obvious since the page was clearly setup years ago as marketing spam and subsequently maintained to parrot the developer's own website, as you yourself noted some time ago SPhilbrick). So from the perspective of "Logiharmonyone", it's OK for the Harmony developer to provide 82% of the content, no questions asked. Yet a Harmony resident has no right to offer a contrasting point-of-view? If I am not a neutral party, then neither is the developer or any of its agents. And when "Logiharmonyone" refers to "legal issues" there are none. The only issue is that the developer got very upset with me after I exposed their deception and they basically decided "You can't play with our ball or anywhere on our court anymore." There was no hearing. No judge. No jury. There was only the summary judgement of the offended party. All of this is detailed in the The Empire Strikes Back article.

And yes, The Empire Strikes Back is indeed an article (a series actually), even if "Logiharmonyone" likes to demean it as something else. Although that article was only published in the HarmonyFL Newsgroup, several other articles (ie. independent editorials) and letters to the editor that were initially published in the HarmonyFL Newsgroup also appeared in print in the local Osceola Gazette newspaper. I was honored as a guest reporter to offer my opinions in the Osceola Gazette for these editorials:

   The 'best' for our children?
   Students in pursuit of honor
   What kind of people?

"Logiharmonyone" writes "I'm told ... his harassment of a college intern regarding previous edits to the Harmony, Florida Wikipedia entry." Told by whom? The developer? The same people who used an innocent young intern in their cowardly and devious attempt to expunge verifiable history from Wikipedia? The "harassment" that "Logiharmonyone" refers to was two phone calls and two emails in my capacity as a citizen reporter to find out what really happened. The intern denied any involvement in the Wikipedia edits. In fact, she claimed to have never edited Wikipedia. She was very friendly and cooperative until she was talked to by the developer (her former employer). Most of this is detailed in the Developer Dirty Tricks - CONFIRMED article.

Finally, my citations do indeed refer to the Harmony, FL Commons website and its related HarmonyFL Newsgroup. But by the same token, most of the developer's edits refer to websites that they either own outright or to websites owned by their paid vendors. At this point the HarmonyFL Newsgroup is equivalent to an online independent newspaper in Harmony and I am its editor. You will see that there are many other contributors, not just me. And as I offered previously SPhilbrick, if there are any references or support materials that you need, please let me know and I will produce them. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A couple comments before I take a hard look at the article:

• I don't want to hear again that Logiharmonyone is posting anonymously. We allow that, even encourage that.

• That said, we don't allow user names that are clearly associated with an organization if the editor is editor an article about that organization. Logiharmonyone is potentially a problem, but not an issue I wish to address at this time.

• I suspect the notability of this article is borderline, and might not survive a close review.

• It is not unusual that articles such as this are largely edited by individuals with vested interests. That is not desired, but a fact of life. When the resulting article provide useful information, and doesn't go overboard, it isn't a life and death situation, but if the article becomes contentious, its very existence may be reviewed, if there is little hop of truly independent editors.

• My concerns about COI editing are not limited to Logiharmonyone, that concern also applies to GeorgeSchiro.

• A google news group is not a great source. For benign points, not worth fighting about, but if used to support contentious points, we may require better references, either as supplement or replacement, and failing that, may decide the best course is to remove the material.

• In my current mood, my desired action would be to blow it all up and start over, including the possibly that no article should exist. However, I don't want to act on that at the moment, so will cool off before taking next steps.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

SPhilbrick, I am completely on-board with your above stated points. I should say that I have never had a professional relationship with Harmony Development Company and my name incorporates "Harmony" only because I live there. I choose to remain anonymous because GeorgeSchiro has a documented history of harassing and bullying individuals who do not agree with him. Having said that, I only made edits to this article because GeorgeSchiro's edits reflect his opinions and his opinions alone, which cannot be verified by a legitimate source not created by him. My neighbors and I feel his edits unduly disparage our community. I am 100% fine with my edits being removed and think the article would be on solid footing with the removal of GeorgeSchiro's as well. GeorgeSchiro's edits aside, the rest of the article, in my opinion, references things that are concrete and easily verifiable. I apologize for the undue amount of time you've had to spend on this small article. My neighbors and I are just trying to do the right thing for our community. Logiharmonyone (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

SPhilbrick, I don't really understand the encouragement of anonymity among editors of Wikipedia unless of course we are talking about citizens of a totalitarian government. It has been my experience that anonymity fosters falsehoods. Similar to how George Schiro is my real name, it is my understanding that SPhilbrick is your real name also, and in my eyes that gives you much more credibility than other Wikipedia editors, IMHO. That said, we can agree to disagree on that point SPhilbrick.

Regarding "harassing and bullying", that is the developer's view of anyone who asks too many questions in public. Transparency and accountability is anathema to them. They are exactly like politicians who feel harassed and bullied by news reporters. Unlike many others in the HarmonyFL Newsgroup who do not fear having their identities known, "Logiharmonyone" simply wants to hide the fact that he is really working for the developer.

When you have the opportunity, please read Finding Harmony History. It summarizes what this is really all about.

"Logiharmonyone" says he has "never had a professional relationship with Harmony Development Company" yet we all know he has. His views are the developer's views. And the developer would like nothing better than to have the Wikipedia page about Harmony expunged since doing so will also expunge the links to any independent views about Harmony. That is their goal. That way prospective home buyers will not find any independent views about Harmony and how the developer really operates here.

If you decide to remove the Harmony page, that will be a very sad day for press freedom here, IMHO. Please don't do it SPhilbrick.

Here is what was in place since 2008 prior to anyone else's edits:

   In 2005 the development of Harmony was purchased by 
   Starwood Capital Group. Since then several existing 
   amenities in Harmony have been removed and many others 
   promised by the original developer have either been 
   rescinded or remain unfulfilled. These actions on the 
   part of the new developers have created much 
   controversy and consternation on the part of long 
   standing Harmony residents. The marketing promises that 
   were apparently broken or remain unfulfilled by 
   Starwood / Harmony Development Company have been 
   documented in detail by a residents website with an 
   open newsgroup.[4]

As you can see, it is very matter-of-fact and even-handed and every word is absolutely true (provably so). In fact, that paragraph accurately represents the history of Harmony in 2005. This Orlando Sentinel article was published at about the same time as the above paragraph. As you can see, contrary to what "Logiharmonyone" has been telling you, these are facts, not just my opinions.

As you can also see, there is none of the inflammatory rhetoric in the above paragraph that is common to the "Logiharmonyone" edits (and his commentary here).

The above paragraph stood without complaint for 2 years. Why? Because the Harmony page on Wikipedia did not rise to the first page of Google search results until 2010. Only after appearing on the first page of Google search results did this matter become an issue for developer agents like "Logiharmonyone". Another Wikipedia admin ruled in 2010 that changes to the above paragraph were unjustified, changes almost exactly like what "Logiharmonyone" posted.

Please tell me SPhilbrick. What exactly do I need to do for the above paragraph to be maintained in its current state to the satisfaction of Wikipedia moderators? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking narrowly, there's no sure way to keep a paragraph in a particular form, as Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. However, I assume you meant, "How than these facts remain in the article?" That requires support from a reliable source. I haven't yet read the Sentinel source, but that is a better source. @Logiharmonyone, my ruminations weren't about removing your edits, but removing the whole article. @George, I don't have the authority to remove the article. No individual Wikipedian has that authority. What I am wondering is whether it should be proposed for deletion, where a number of editors reach a consensus. I don't know what the outcome would be. My preference is to find a way to write an unbiased article, but that is looking very challenging.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Re "...that will be a very sad day for press freedom here, IMHO....". Let's nip this in the bud. Freedom of the press is about the government and the press. I am not the government, and Wikipedia is not the press, so the sentiment, one I support, has NO applicability here.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

My concern is not with you Stephen. I know that neither you nor Wikipedia are a government or the press. But what is Wikipedia really? Wikipedia is often a conduit between people and what they can learn about governments - and this is critical - without government interference. The infringement of press freedom that I fear occurs when governments can prevent people from seeing the truth about what governments do.

In this particular case, I am an activist citizen journalist (ie. "the press" in Harmony) and the de facto government is the multi-billion dollar Starwood / Harmony Development Company. Of course others like Logiharmonyone will claim that Harmony has an elected government known as the Harmony CDD, but that body is still controlled by the developer and it has no say whatsoever about the vast majority of what goes on in Harmony (see What is Harmony?).

So when I wrote about "a very sad day for press freedom here" I was referring to the removal of links from Wikipedia to facts about Harmony (facts supported by documentation) that are never mentioned on the developer's website (see Harmony History). The removal of such links is exactly what the "government" of Harmony wants. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

non-encyclopedic material

I have no affiliation with Harmony; I am an editor who occasionally edits articles that Sphilbrick also edits, and I noticed this discussion. Sphilbrick seems to be handling some dispute here fine, IMHO.

I noticed a forward-looking claim alleging that the community "will" have 18,000 residents, while it apparently has 1,000 residents now. It's not encyclopedic to have forward-looking, unverifiable assertions, so I removed it. It also lacked a source for the assertion, but really no source would suffice for the "will" claim. A source could support an assertion that at a particular past date, some party specifically hoped or planned for it to reach 18,000 size, but I don't know if that is worth mentioning.

Further I question all of the following as non-encyclopedic:

In 2003, after seven years of planning the first residents moved in and made Harmony their home. Since that time, Harmony has become home to more than a thousand residents. Harmony's population is diverse in age, like many traditional towns across the United States, with many generations being represented. The July 2011 Welcome Home My Florida publication spotlighted a few residents of Harmony and their connection to the community.

In 2005 the development of Harmony was purchased by Starwood Capital Group. At that time, several existing amenities in Harmony had been removed and many others promised by the original developer had either been rescinded or remain unfulfilled. These actions on the part of the new developers have created much controversy and consternation on the part of some long standing Harmony residents. The marketing promises that were apparently broken or remain unfulfilled by Starwood / Harmony Development Company have been documented in detail by a residents website with an open newsgroup. However, in the past few years, many of the amenities missing that caused controversy, including highly rated schools, sports fields, kayaks, equestrian facility, and others have come to Harmony.

It is really not surprising, and is not remarkable, that there exist complaints among homeowners in a community, between themselves and between homeowners vs. developers. I haven't reviewed the postings in the google group, but that is simply not going to be a wikipedia-reliable source, especially not for negative claims. If there exist public records such as lawsuits, perhaps reliable sources exist among court filings, but even then not every local dispute merits encyclopedia coverage. I'll pause for discussion, but am inclined to remove the passages above from the mainspace article. --doncram 13:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello doncram, read the next section, which I was writing while you were posting, looks like we are on the same page. :) --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input doncram. Since neither you nor Sphilbrick are personally involved with Harmony, feedback from either of you can be reasonably considered free from bias. That is my impression.

You and Sphilbrick obviously understand the Wikipedia environment far better than I do. So please excuse my lack of understanding of what may be considered "encyclopedic" or "non-encyclopedic" in this context. If a historical claim can be verified as factual and is related to the article in which it appears, isn't that considered encyclopedic? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Article review

Let's talk about what belongs:

When completed, Harmony will be home to approximately 18,000 residents, 850,000 square feet of retail and office space, and 1 million square feet of light industrial. Fails WP:CRYSTAL

Harmony's population is diverse in age, like many traditional towns across the United States, with many generations being represented. We don't have a guideline called WP:Fluff perhaps we need one. But wp:SPAM fits.

The July 2011 Welcome Home My Florida publication spotlighted a few residents of Harmony and their connection to the community. More fluff

At that time, several existing amenities in Harmony had been removed and many others promised by the original developer had either been rescinded or remain unfulfilled. These actions on the part of the new developers have created much controversy and consternation on the part of some long standing Harmony residents. The marketing promises that were apparently broken or remain unfulfilled by Starwood / Harmony Development Company have been documented in detail by a residents website with an open newsgroup Fails WP:RS

However, in the past few years, many of the amenities missing that caused controversy, including highly rated schools, sports fields, kayaks, equestrian facility, and others have come to Harmony. I didn't find this in the reference.

In 2008 Harmony was certified as a green community by the Florida Green Building Coalition (FGBC). Harmony won points for its comprehensive approach to community design, management, and building practices. OK, but surely this reference is online (not required, but helpful)

In 2010 Harmony's Conservation Director was named to Florida's statewide trails council. Fluff

Also in 2011, Harmony added a 10 stall equestrian operation including a barn and a magnificent riding ring to its town square. Ken Najorka, owner of Najorka Performance Horses, LLC and coach of UCF Western Equestrian Team, provides education, riding instruction, and holds competitive events Spammy, Source fails WP:RS

In 2012 Harmony commenced construction on its first phase of commercial retail space in its town square. The first phase consists of approximately 15,000 square feet of rentable space; and includes the Town Square Market grocery store and several eateries. Anticipated opening date is December 2012 Fails WP:CRYSTAL

In 2012 long-standing Harmony residents were still awaiting these promised amenities (for almost a decade) [11]: Businesses in Town Square / Thriving Commercial / Vibrant Town Center Clubhouse Facilities for Recreation Equestrian Club (for all resident horse owners) Farmers Market Lake Club Open Access (to all 11,000 acres) Organized Field Sports Town Entry Spring House Source fails WP:RS

School District of Osceola County, Florida operates the schools in the Town of Harmony. Harmony Community School is a public school that offers pre-k thru 8th grade. Harmony High School is a public school for grades 9-12 that is located across from Harmony on U.S. 192. The school is connected to the Town of Harmony via a tunnel under U.S. 192. This allows all students in Harmony to be able to walk to school Reference needed

The Town of Harmony is home to Harmony Golf Preserve, the only Johnny Miller-designed golf course in Central Florida, The Golf Preserve promises a challenging game to players of all skill levels. Designed as a fully protected environmental preserve and beautifully integrated into its natural surroundings, the signature 18-hole public course has been named as one of the Top 50 Public Courses in 2010 by GolfWorld Reader's Choice Awards. Spammy, although OK with rewrite

Harmony Golf Preserve at http://www.harmonygolfpreserve.com Not even a sentence

The Town of Harmony host a variety of festivals and events for both the residents of Harmony and the greater Central Florida Community each year. Fluff

The four major yearly festivals include the Healthy Lifestyle Festival, Dark Sky Festival, Harmony Harvest Festival, and the Harmony Winter Carnival. Information on all of the festivals can be found at http://www.harmonyfestivals.com Not the proper way to reference

The Town of Harmony also host a variety of events and activities almost daily for residents of the community. Fluff

Information on all of the festivals and events can be found on the Harmony Florida Events website at http://www.eventsatharmony.com Not the proper way to reference

The groundbreaking for the first phase of retail in the Harmony Town Center is scheduled for 2012. Fails WP:CRYSTAL

The Town of Harmony has a monthly newspaper that is sent to residents of Harmony and surrounding communities Fluff

A digital version of the newspaper is available at http://sunpubnews.com/digital/harmony/ Not the proper way to reference

In summary, I found two or three sentences that might survive unscathed (and I think some of our FA editors would challenge these; I'm an easy grader). Many ought to be simply removed, and other requires a rewrite to remain.

I don't have the interest to do the rewrite. I realize the main contributors to this article do not see eye-to-eye. However, that occurs in many other articles, and editors have managed to pull together a workable version that is acceptable. I suggest that each editor interested in this article begin but addressing all of these points. If than cannot happen, I'll propose it for AfD. A possible outcome of such a discussion is not an outright deletion, but a stubification, essentially removing all the problematic material, and leaving a few sentence paragraph noting this place exists.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As you know Sphilbrick, these are the sections that I have been defending:

   At that time, several existing amenities in Harmony had 
   been removed and many others promised by the original 
   developer had either been rescinded or remain unfulfilled. 
   These actions on the part of the new developers have 
   created much controversy and consternation on the part of 
   some long standing Harmony residents. The marketing 
   promises that were apparently broken or remain unfulfilled 
   by Starwood / Harmony Development Company have been 
   documented in detail by a residents website with an open 
   newsgroup

and:

   In 2012 long-standing Harmony residents were still 
   awaiting these promised amenities (for almost a decade) 
   [11]: Businesses in Town Square / Thriving Commercial / 
   Vibrant Town Center Clubhouse Facilities for Recreation 
   Equestrian Club (for all resident horse owners) Farmers 
   Market Lake Club Open Access (to all 11,000 acres) 
   Organized Field Sports Town Entry Spring House

You flagged both as "Source fails WP:RS". In other words, these claims reference an "unreliable source" according to Wikipedia established standards. This is understandable since, even though I claim that I am a personal witness to the stated facts (and so are several others), you don't know me from Adam. Is this Orlando Sentinel article considered a reliable source? Is the article plus what's in the HarmonyFL Newsgroup sufficient to support the first paragraph above? If not, what would be? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The Orlando Sentinal article qualifies as a Reliable Source. It is quite dated, in connection with an issue that may have materailly changed since then, so the issues may need more recent sources.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The municipality geographically closest to Harmony is St. Cloud, Florida. You will notice that like the Harmony, Florida page, the St. Cloud, Florida page also has "History" as its first section after the introduction.

The following paragraph appears in St. Cloud, Florida "History":

   On June 1, 1915, the Florida Legislature incorporated 
   St. Cloud as a city. Its downtown features landmark 
   buildings by the Orlando architectural firm of Ryan & 
   Roberts, a partnership consisting of two women. The 
   buildings by Ryan and Roberts and others in the 
   downtown area are predominately Spanish Revival.[11]

Here's the reference (ie. [11]):

   Dalles, John, "The Pathbreaking Legacy of Ryan and 
   Roberts", in "Reflections", the journal of the 
   Historical Society of Central Florida, Summer 2009; 
   pages 8 and 9.

The claims are about something that happened in St. Cloud's past (1915) and the source (which we must assume to be reliable since it is not available online to be checked) is dated 2009. Neither the facts claimed from the past nor the referenced source have changed. Yet much has changed in St. Cloud since 1915, including many architectural details. Should the above paragraph therefore be removed? I don't think so. Why? Because it represents historical facts. Are the historical facts particularly notable? No, but they are part of St. Cloud's history none-the-less.

Here again is the original paragraph from the Harmony, Florida page which has been the focus of all these discussions of late:

   In 2005 the development of Harmony was purchased by 
   Starwood Capital Group. Since then several existing 
   amenities in Harmony have been removed and many others 
   promised by the original developer have either been 
   rescinded or remain unfulfilled. These actions on the 
   part of the new developers have created much 
   controversy and consternation on the part of long 
   standing Harmony residents. The marketing promises that 
   were apparently broken or remain unfulfilled by 
   Starwood / Harmony Development Company have been 
   documented in detail by a residents website with an 
   open newsgroup.[4]

   4. ^ "Town of Harmony Residents Open Newsgroup". 
      Harmony Residents. March 5, 2006 .... Retrieved 
      2008-08-12.

The facts claimed about the happenings in Harmony in 2005 are not only supported by posts starting in 2006 in the referenced newsgroup (an unreliable source, according to current Wikipedia standards), but they are also supported by a newspaper article (a reliable source) published in 2008. The facts haven't changed and neither have the sources. They are all part of Harmony's history.

Does it now make sense to expunge this verifiable part of Harmony's history which has appeared in Wikipedia since 2008? I certainly don't think so. Likewise SPhilbrick, I don't understand why a more recent source is necessary or practical for something that happened in the past and has been verified. I am sure that there are hundreds or thousands of pages on Wikipedia with a "History" section. Do those historical claims also require more recent sources? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk page message removal

Apologies to editors here.

It is highly irregular in Wikipedia for an editor to remove another editor's posting on a Talk page, which I have just done here. I did so unilaterally, noting the edit violated an agreement by that editor. I don't care one whit about that editor's claim that the editor was invited to post here. It should not be done, it is in violation of an agreement by reasonable understanding. I request to the editor whose posting I removed that this be discussed elsewhere if necessary. Or I would prefer not to discuss it at all, actually. No good will come of playing it out here, anyhow. sincerely, --doncram 22:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Not your call, Buckwheat. I'm restoring the comment. If you hae a problem, file a complaint. --Calton | Talk 18:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• [Came here due to an email message.] It appears that this article has been the scene of conflict between two parties with conflicting agendas to push. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, publishing opinion, redressing grievances, or righting great wrongs. Doncram's action in trimming the article back to a minimal "stub" was appropriate to stop the conflict. The current state of the article probably is unsatisfactory to everybody, but this talk page is here for civil discussion of what the article should contain. The "warring parties" should refrain from editing the article, and everyone should refrain from editing it until some consensus is reached on what it should say. (If edit warring continues in the article, we can take the further step of protecting the article from changes.) When I refer to consensus, I don't mean that the two parties with WP:COI need to agree (this is unlikely), but rather that disinterested Wikipedians need to reach consensus that the article is fair and that it is verifiable based on published reliable sources. The Orlando Sentinel article from 2008 is one such source. Are there other news media reports, books, etc. that can be used as sources? --Orlady (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Options for going forward

• Option 1 is to remove the most egregious violations, and see if the remainder can be cleaned up.

• Option 2 is to be more ruthless, and remove everything that isn't solidly consistent with guidelines, which I think would leave three or four sentences and a map.

• Option 3 is to propose the article for AfD, and see whether the consensus is that anything should surive, with the distinct possibility that it should be stubbified back to the opening two sentences, and maybe one or two others.

• Option 4 is to let the interested editors dig in, with the understanding that if this isn't materially improved in a reasonable time fram, then option 2 or 3 might be pursued.

There are, of course, other options, these are just the four that leap to mind. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to work to achieve "Option 1". Please just let me know what I can do to help convert the "unreliable source" issues with the two paragraphs of concern to me to reliable sources. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, the Orlando Sentinel generally qualifies as a Reliable Source. However, if there are no other reliable sources discussing this dispute, it may be, no matter how intensely the residents may feel about it, that the disagreement doesn't rise to the level of notability needed to justify inclusion in an encyclopedia. We don't cover every lawsuit or dispute between parties, even though those parties may feel very strongly about the issues. It take significant coverage in multiple sources to justify inclusion. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I would certainly be unopposed to "Option 1" and would be willing to begin the clean-up myself, including the removal of the two entries that GeorgeSchiro continues to defend. While I agree that the Orlando Sentinel is a step above the google group as a citation, you'll note that GeorgeSchiro was also the driving force behind the lone Orlando Sentinel article. As such, this wikipedia entry should not be the place for one person to publicize his grievances. I believe your fellow editor did a fairly thorough job of pointing out what probably is and is not acceptable and provides a good starting point for moving forward.Logiharmonyone (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Logiharmonyone, you seem to make many claims not actually supported by facts. But perhaps I am missing something in this case. Here is all that I could find in the article about me:

   The most vocal and organized critic of the developer 
   may be George Schiro, who voices his displeasure on the 
   Web site harmonyflcommons.com, an address that's close 
   to the developer's harmonyfl.com.

   Schiro says there's a lack of retail in the town 
   square, the schools haven't lived up to the developer's 
   early billing, and there's a lack of access to 
   conservation areas -- among other things.

I was one among at least 3 Harmony residents interviewed for the article. Can you please show us where in the referenced newspaper article it says or implies that I was the "driving force" behind the article?

You also refer to "his grievances" when it is clearly an established fact that I am not alone. You also claim that Wikipedia is being used as a place for "one person to publicize his grievances". Yet that is not the case either. A few basic and verifiable facts are reflected in Wikipedia while the vast bulk of source information appears elsewhere. That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, to my understanding. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 09:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

To GeorgeSchiro -- Please don't get too wrapped up in defining "driving force", but my impression from reading the Sentinel article, and from some experience around seeking and getting news coverage of events and happenings of organizations, was that George Schiro must indeed have been the driving force there. A journalist cited Schiro explicitly twice for the more extreme views. Much else in the article, less extreme, was not specifically attributed and is likely also sourced from the Schiro interview. And I strongly suspect that the impetus for the article itself, was George Schiro. News orgranizations cover stories where there is a story, where some or all of the information is provided readily to them. It is not put into the mainspace wikipedia article that George Schiro was the "driving force", but that is a reasonable assumption anyone could make, and it is reasonable for a person to assert they believe it to be true on this Talk page. It is reasonable to discuss potential/apparent conflicts of interest. So, let's not even debate this point, okay?

Similarly about your grievances...they are indeed your grievances, though yes they no doubt are shared by some others. About there being 3 residents interviewed, I assume you know that because I rather think you were indeed the driving force behind the article.... I don't care to learn, but you could have recommended the journalist interview one or both of the others, even. Or the journalist found them on her own, which would also be fine, but your knowledge of the 3 sources suggests to me that you were all over that story. Please don't take offense from Talk page statements that include some reasonable statements of opinion, given as opinion.

I myself accept mention of the Orlando Sentinel newspaper article, indicated by my adding citation of it to the wikipedia article, but I am concerned it should not get undue weight, as being a single source from a number of years ago, and from it being pushed then and now. I also am wondering more if the entire wikipedia article should be dropped/deleted (i.e. option 3). There's another planned community that I know about, which is I think far larger, with no mention in Wikipedia. I imagine there are residents there who are happy and others who are not. I tend to think none of it should be in wikipedia. It is fine and good, GeorgeSchiro, for you to have grievances and for you to express them, freedom-of-the-press-wise, but the appropriate location is in a blog and/or website and/or in regular newspapers, not in the encyclopedia. Sorry I am not being more helpful in terms of pointing to the specific wikipedia policies/guidelines; i don't venture into areas like this article very much. --doncram 11:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken doncram. As the "driving force" (LOL), I wish had remembered the article 4 years ago and used it as a reference rather having to Google it a day or so ago. Anyway, regarding the "3 residents interviewed", we are all mentioned by name in the article: Chaz, John and myself (and yes, being such a small community we all knew each other). FYI, there were many other developer critics as well, not just some others. Sadly, most have moved, including both Chaz and John, and those left are sick of talking about it besides fearing developer retribution. And contrary to what Chaz was willing to say publicly, he was as much a critic as I was and very sorry he ever moved to Harmony. All of these people moved to Harmony long before Logiharmonyone. That's why his views are quite a bit different (besides being paid by the developer). Anyway, my point was that Logiharmonyone has been somewhat loose with the truth. But as long as anything goes only on talk pages, I guess that's OK. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I can see that doncram made some pretty major changes a few minutes ago in accord with what he and Sphilbrick had previously proposed. How would you folks feel about my adding the following statement of fact:

   In 2006 an open newsgroup was setup for Harmony residents, 
   developer employees, Harmony CDD Supervisors, Harmony 
   CDD Managers, Osceola County School Board Members, 
   Osceola County Commissioners and anyone else in the 
   area to publicly discuss various issues with the 
   development of Harmony and greater Osceola County.[5]

   [5] "Harmony Residents Open Newsgroup". Harmony Residents.
        March 5, 2006 .... Retrieved 2008-08-12.

--GeorgeSchiro (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

My cousin Bob also opened a checking account at a bank near Harmony and then created a blogspot site where people could talk about it. The point I believe these guys are trying to get across to you, GeorgeSchiro, is that the existence of the newsgroup that you as a private citizen control is not noteworthy. The Town of Harmony exists with or without your google group and the "articles" you pen and post there are of no consequence to users of the internet seeking information about the town. Logiharmonyone (talk) 01:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure that "cousin Bob" is as real as "Logiharmonyone". So is his bank account since there are no banks near Harmony.

To contrast, here are some of the real people who have contributed to the HarmonyFL Newsgroup over the years:

• Adam Seithel, Osceola Firefighters President
• Bob Geimer, VP of Starwood Capital
• Fred Hawkins, Osceola County Commissioner
• Gary Moyer, Harmony CDD Manager
• Jay Wheeler, Osceola County School Board
• Kelvin Soto, Osceola County School Board Elect
• Mary Guidone, Spokesperson for Toho Water Authority
• Nancy Smith, Vice Chair Osceola Democratic Party
• Ray Walls, Harmony CDD Supervisor
• Shad Tome, President of Harmony Development Company
• Stacy McCland, Florida Senate Candidate
• Steve Berube, Harmony CDD Supervisor
• Tom Long, Osceola County School Board

And when you say I "control" the HarmonyFL Newsgroup, you fail to mention that there are two attorneys who act as backup moderators to keep it totally honest, fair and impartial. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for not taking offense at my pretty drastic reduction of the wikipedia article. I have browsed in the "open newsgroup" at https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/harmonyfl, including the leading, apparently most recent discussions titled "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Developer Dirty Tricks - CONFIRMED", and also in some others, including one where someone asserted a posting had been suppressed by the moderators, one of whom is apparently George Schiro. There was explanation, back and forth about the person being able to post it, after all. I see frustration about dealing with a corporation, and apparently that corporation using a PR firm paid to post nice stuff into the Wikipedia article. Frankly I believe that was done, as has been done for many wikipedia articles. And other discussion of a golf driving range, and more. Sounds like there are human disagreements, unresolveable problems, personal relations and financial issues all there. From a personal point of view, I could feel sympathy for either/both sides, about entrenched differences, no way to resolve, about things seeming unfair. It seems obviously ripe for a glib newspaper article title about "Disharmony", which is what the Orlando Sentinel article used. From the point of view of Wikipedia, though, I think it is all not relevant.

I notice another discussion group at http://www.city-data.com/forum/orlando/1317746-opinions-town-harmony-fl.html. Perhaps there are more discussion groups. Should they all be mentioned?

But actually the wikipedia guideline at WP:LINKSTOAVOID on external links states that Facebook and discussion groups usually should not be linked. Again I am not usually involved in articles like this one, so I am learning as I go.

I think the upshot is that No, I don't think your suggested addition above should be added, and I further think that the existing external link to the Google discussion group, which I had left in, should be dropped. I will implement that drop, next. I consider it a compromise accommodating to User:GeorgeSchiro that the Orlando Sentinel article be kept linked. The Sentinel article provides salient mention of the Google discussion group URL. The Sentinel article has a title "Dis-Harmony: The Harmony neighborhood: Promises broken?" which can be viewed as negative or can be viewed as balanced. The Sentinel article provides some perspective, at least slightly removed, that there is discontent, and it includes some management replies. I think it should be an all right thing to keep it mentioned, but leave it to a really interested reader to follow their way there and dig in and then find and join the discussion group or whatever. I am really sorry for all the unhappiness around the Harmony development, and around the Wikipedia article including past shenanigans. The upshot, though remains the same: the wikipedia article should be kept just extremely short with post code and GNS number and, I accept the Orlando Sentinel article being cited for something non-controversial, the population being over 1,000. I hope this suffices. I would welcome Sphilbrick or other non-involved "regular" wikipedia editors commenting. But otherwise I don't plan to participate here a lot more. --doncram 01:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you have really been taken in by Logiharmonyone doncram. I think that perhaps you don't realize the damage that you have done. Also why did you change the Starwood purchase date from 2005 to 2008? That is not accurate. Why did you leave "HarmonyFL.com" as the "offical" site. It isn't. It is owned exclusively by the developer, not by the residents. Residents have no say whatsoever in its content just like they have no say in 90% of Harmony. And yes, any other open discussion groups should be included as well. Why suppress information? If the Wikipedia policy states that "discussion groups usually should not be linked" then in this case I think the HarmonyFL Newsgroup should be linked, otherwise prospective home buyers will have easy access to only one side of the story (which is exactly what Logiharmonyone has wanted all along). Finally, you removed an external link to the residents website, why?

How do I appeal this decision doncram? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 02:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, i know this must be frustrating for you. On the factual point, I changed the Starwood mention from approximately "purchased in 2005" to approximately "was owned, as of 2008", because the 2008 Orlando Sentinel source only mentions the latter, i.e. "Starwood Capital Corp. now owns Harmony Development Co.". It doesn't matter when it was purchased, does it? But whatever is stated should be sourced.

On the personal side, I don't like being in the position of judging and implementing, like being judge-jury-executioner all rolled into one, for reason that it can seem unfair to you in this context. I am trying to cut through a longer process that I think would result in the same end. If there were non-COI editors participating here, i would want to be more polite-seeming, e.g. by stating my intention to remove the newsgroup mention and then leaving it for discussion for a few days, but my sense is that Sphilbrick just wants this discussion to be over, too, and that there is not appetite to discuss more.

I don't know that I am taken in by editor Logiharmonyone; I guess I am assuming Logiharmonyone is associated with the Harmony management and/or is a homeowner aligned with management and is seeking his/her own interests here, which may be for a more positive portrayal of the development. I am willing to "watch out" for that, if you are asking. But i don't see Logiharmonyone immediately pressing for positive fluff stuff here or immediately pressing for removal of the Orlando Sentinel article mention. I note Logiharmonyone did make an edit just now following mine, citing a 2010 census instead of the 2008 Sentinel article for the population, which is fine and good, and then moving the Sentinel article citation down.

About how to appeal, i just re-read the wp:COI guideline. It directs you to use {{request edit}} to call for a specific change to the article. You can compose a specific edit again or refer to your last suggestion, and put that here, i.e. literally paste {{edit COI}} into here, and then I think that will call some other editor(s). Also I am open to Sphilbrick (who may well be watching here) coming to a different judgment than me, or wanting to discuss. I will watch here.

In the larger picture, about wikipedia editors having disagreements and sometimes one having an apparent upper hand, like me seeming to have status over you at this time, I guess i hope/figure that it balances out in the end, if you continue editing in wikipedia in other articles. I personally have edited many thousands of articles, mostly about non-controversial topics of historic sites like those linked from National Register of Historic Places listings in Osceola County, Florida. If you contribute to many articles, you get some balance, having strong effect in some cases from your contributions remaining permanently and having less effect in other cases from other editors' actions both seeming to improve on your work and/or seeming just to change it not for the better. If you have just one narrow topic area, I see little way for you to get balance like that. I hope this helps somehow. Sincerely, --doncram 03:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Just for example, I just went to one of the Osceola County historic site articles and added an "official site" external link, see my edit here. For historic sites that are buildings that have an ongoing church or a museum or some other entity in them, it is usually obvious what is the "official site". About the official site for Harmony, Florida, isn't that most naturally harmonyfl.com, the site cited by the Orlando Sentinel article? I dunno for sure, about a planned community: should there be more than one official site, e.g. for a homeowners' association separately? What would that be? Perhaps there should be more than one official site, or perhaps the one official site external link should be entirely dropped here, too.

P.P.S. Searching earlier on "Harmony Florida dispute" I found a 100 or so page long PDF document apparently of some homeowner agreement, which included dispute resolution procedures. I don't get it, really, about your disputes running along in a Google discussion group and so on. If you have a really good cause, I sorta would think you should be able to win a lawsuit, and then maybe get some news coverage of that. But maybe your cause doesn't rise to that, and/or maybe you are limited to dispute resolution procedures that are not satisfying. Well, the dispute resolution procedures in Wikipedia are often not satisfying, too. :( Sorry. --doncram 03:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I gave some thought to the "official" site question before reading Doncram's response, and reached the exact same conclusion. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

COI editors, please stop

To any editors having a potential COI interest, please stop editing in the mainspace article. Marking an edit "minor" and using a misleading edit summary doesn't fool anyone, about introducing / reintroducing development about some Harmony residents' discontent. It is a compromise, already, to include any reference at all to a 2008 newspaper article which is possibly biased, possibly out-of-date, possibly given undue weight already. Just please stop editing in the article, everyone. You are free to post comments here on the Talk page. You are free to edit many hundreds of thousands of other wikipedia articles, just not this one. --doncram 11:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

doncram wrote:

   Marking an edit "minor" and using a misleading edit 
   summary doesn't fool anyone

I am a little concerned doncram. I think that perhaps you are making this personal. As a novice editor I don't know any tricks for "fooling" anyone. I figured a "minor edit" means "changing just a few words". If it means something else, I apologize for my ignorance. One thing I do know is that every little change is logged. How could anyone with this knowledge reasonably expect to fool anyone, particularly expert editors like you and Sphilbrick who are constantly monitoring this page? Besides, I do everything using my real name. I assure you that "fooling anyone" didn't even cross my mind.

Regarding a "misleading edit", my edit summary was about "Logiharmonyone's" change from simple language ("purchased") to the use of obfuscating language ("transferred"), as if the new developer was given the property to run out of some good will on its part. While there I also added the blurb about the newspaper article since it seemed to me that the reference to it was just hanging there doubled-up with the "purchase agreement" reference without any text to go with it. I now understand that I should have done two separate edits with two distinct comments.

I'm not sure why you seem to be taking sides here doncram, but I certainly didn't mean to offend you in any way. And again, I apologize to you if I did. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 17:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for following up and I am sorry, too. I guess I misunderstood somewhat, and also I didn't cut some slack / anticipate as I probably should have that the use of the "minor edit" tag was due to your being a newish editor.

About the minor tag, that is not terribly important in general, but it is a small courtesy to other editors who are watching a given page, that there really is no reason for them to come investigate. Like, it is used for a completely incontroversial correction of a typo. Your edit was more than that, so in general practice an edit like that should not be marked minor. This is my view of what is general practice, what is the "norm" among most editors. You are absolutely right though that several persons are watching this page like hawks, and there couldn't really be any fooling accomplished, so I also believe you that no fooling was intended.

For this page, probably no edits at all should be marked minor by anyone, because everything is contentious potentially. Every little change, like adding an innocuous-sounding fact or changing the order of anything, could be taken as contentious for changing the relative salience of things.

About taking sides, I didn't mean to. I did accept a couple edits by Logiharmonye(sp?) i.e. i did not revert them, then i reverted yours, so I see that it could seem that I was taking sides. But I did consider each of those edits and decide they seemed okay to me, improvements in small ways, even though they might accomplish a possible agenda of moving the Orlando Sentinel mention further down, to lesser prominence. It occurred to me that could be L's secret agenda, whatever, and if more of that happened I would be more concerned. I did state for this Talk section that I was requesting COI editors, meaning Logiharmonye also, to just stop. I don't expect there's anything more that is to be added that is useful. And it is costly of our attention, all of us, to scrutinize very minor changes. I'd rather not see any changes for 6 months to a year, frankly. But it remains open to both COI editors present to propose changes here on the Talk page, and to use the EditRequest tag to call for other editors to come consider them, to get other views besides mine. Neither of you used that approach for the recent small changes; it is an overstatement to say so but I am mildly irked at both of you. Whatever.

About purchase vs. transfer in the main text, I don't get the distinction. The footnote given is labelled "Purchase and Sale Agreement", so purchase as a word is present either way. "Ownership was transfered" seems like a mildly more passive tense way to state something, so here I mildly prefer it to the more active "so-and-so purchased" way of saying it. Really I don't care or understand what is any serious distinction here.

Hope this helps. No offense taken about anything. Thanks. --doncram 18:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like Wikipedia is getting a taste of what Harmony residents have been dealing with for years: excessive nitpicking and baseless accusations by GeorgeSchiro. If ones does not agree with him, they become the "target." Bottom line is that I made two changes to the article that simply clarified what was left and added some official and factual citations that verified the information. I could have added another official reference that verified the 2003 "opening" date for Harmony and nullified the need for the Orlando Sentinel article reference to remain, but I did not out of respect for the agreement that was reached here. Additionally, I can think of other worthwhile things like local government structure and geographical points of interest to add to the article, but I am fine with leaving it the way it is if that will keep the peace.

Though I wrote it before, I will write it again because GeorgeSchiro continues to make false claims: I am not an agent of the developer of Harmony and I have not ever been paid a dime by the developer (nor has my employer). I simply live in the community and choose to remain anonymous to avoid being cyber-bullied by GeorgeSchiro. I'm not sure if that brings COI into play for me, but I'd be willing to confirm my true identity to doncram privately if that would provide a higher level of reassurance.

doncram, thanks for your attention to this article and your diligence and patience in dealing with it.Logiharmonyone (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize doncram if you agree with "Logiharmonyone" that my questioning of your choices on this topic has made you feel "cyber-bullied". That is a popular term among folks who work for the developer, the folks who can't stand discussing Harmony's "dirty laundry" in public. These are the same people who would make up a tissue of lies about someone (see The Empire Strikes Back) in an attempt to silence them. Our local county commissioner recently went on record stating that he does not believe these lies either (see Official Support).

As I have stated repeatedly, the corporation that "Logiharmonyone" has been posting on behalf of has one goal in this context and one goal only. And that goal is not the presentation of the truth. The goal of "Logiharmonyone" and Starwood / Harmony Development Company is as follows:

   The total removal of any and all contrasting points of 
   view about Harmony. If that results in the permanent 
   deletion of the Harmony page on Wikipedia, all the 
   better (since the developer can't control it anymore).

   Here is some of what they want to hide:

       Decade Long Water Problems in Harmony
       "Pink Slime" in Osceola Schools
       Falsified Harmony CDD Public Records
       Harmony Developer Dissolves Charter School
       Harmony Developer Limits Access to Amenities
       Harmony Firestation Almost Closed
       Harmony Supervisor Gets Free Rent From Developer 
       Overall Mediocrity in Osceola Schools

   Bottom line: the developers of Harmony will do anything 
   they can to prevent potential home buyers from seeing 
   the truth about Harmony.

It's all about profits, not about the truth. By eliminating "the other side of the story" they win. They win by only presenting the developer's side of the story which appears at the only website left in Wikipedia to represent "the truth" about Harmony (a place not a corporation). That one and only website is owned and operated by exactly one entity: Starwood / Harmony Development Company. That is not right, but I guess only time will tell. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for honoring my request for you and others not to put anything into the mainspace article. I don't think you could be seriously suggesting adding any of that, but to be clear, none of that is appropriate for the mainspace article. Most or all of which would explicitly violate Wikipedia guidelines or policies, as Sphilbrick laid out further above, about about milder stuff.

The purpose of this Talk page is to discuss improvements to the mainspace article. Thanks. --doncram 14:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that improvements to the mainspace article is the goal here. Having all of the marketing fluff removed is a good thing. Removing all references to an alternative point-of-view is not however. That makes the current article too one-sided, IMHO. You say that anyone can just look in the newspaper article to find the link to resident generated content, yet we all know that very few will actually do that, especially since the domain references aren't even defined as HTML links in the article. But anyway let's move on.

I have a few suggestions on improving the article. But before moving on I hope that you will please answer one question doncram. Have you been made to feel "cyber-bullied" by me in any way? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No more personal attacks, no more sniping.

To User:GeorgeSchiro and User:Logiharmonyone: Both of you are inexperienced editors—this isn't a shot, anyone with under a few thousand edits is in the same category. Because neither of you have edited anywhere other than here, you are excused for not knowing that we do not permit the type of interaction you two are engaged in. Now you know, and it must stop. Consider this your first warning. Blocks will follow if the behavior does not change.

George, you now may know, but a minor edit is a pure typo, or something less innocuous. I don't think you intended to abuse it, and sorry you got caught in a strong rebuke. Logiharmonyone, stop commenting on George. We have a general rule - comment on the edit, not the editor.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit

Coincidentally, I was in the middle of writing a post to another editor to get feedback on what I called the nuclear option - removal of the cruft and inadequatleyty refernced material, leaving only the bare minimum. I see Doncram has gone ahead.

I support.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Request Edit 1

Considering that recent wholesale edits have already returned this article to almost a stub, I would suggest that the following phrase be removed also:

   master-planned

from this opening sentence:

   Harmony is an unincorporated master-planned community 
   near St. Cloud, Florida, United States.

No evidence has been provided to support the "master-planned" description.

At this point and since this article has been so hotly debated, it seems fair to only include terms and other phraseology clearly supported by references. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I found an independent source making the claim and added as a reference.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I should have suggested either adding a reference or removing the text. Thanks Stephen. A quick search using "site:wheretoretiremagazine.com harmony" makes me doubt the reliability of the source however and whether or not developers pay to be included. Their advertising page certainly does not instill confidence in their objectivity "If you want to attract affluent retirees to your state, town, development ..." (see "www.wheretoretiremagazine.com/advertising/" - can't be a real URL in Wikipedia). There is no way to know for sure I guess.

Interesting enough, when I went to reference the "www.wheretoretiremagazine.com" website I received this message from Wikipedia:

   Your edit was not saved because it contains a new 
   external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's 
   blacklist.

Would that still qualify it as a "reliable source"? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am aware of the blacklist, but not fully conversant in the process for adding or removing from the list. I believe that an entry on the list is not likely to be reliable, but can be permitted in some circumstances.

You can read more at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist, which mentions the possiiblity that a specific link can be accepted, even if the general site is a problem.

However, I'm not sure what is prompting this. Are you trying to use that site as a reference?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The reference you added "Harmony Energy Star Green Homes used the blacklisted reference as its only source for the term "master-planned". --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The reference I added links to http://www.greenecocommunities.com/Florida/Harmony-energy-star-green-homes.html. not to www.wheretoretiremagazine.com --SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. But the article referenced mentions "Where to Retire" magazine as its source while "Where to Retire" magazine's website has been blacklisted from Wikipedia. I just figured that since a blacklisted resource is most likely not reliable, neither is a resource that depends on it for the one piece of information that this article depends on it for. It's a syllogism. But apparently I am mistaken on this. NP, it's not that big a deal Stephen. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I honestly was puzzled, and poked around to see if one pub was owned by the other, and missed that the phrase was sourced to another publication. However, that doesn't change the conclusion. For example, blogs are generally not considered reliable sources (with rare exceptions), and references to blogs are removed everyday. But if the NYT make a statement, and said they got it from a blog, it would generally be OK. What makes the NYT a reliable source is their organized approach to fact-checking and their professional staff. Even though they blunder often, there's really no alternative. We assume that those who are professionals in the dissemination of information have done their homework, so if they repeat something from a blog, they probably didn't just swallow it without some reason to believe it. I did say "generally" and I wouldn't want someone quoting me that a NYT quote of a blog statement is always acceptable as a reference—if, for example, the NYT quotes a blog as part of a new story about how blogs get it wrong, or followed up the blog quote with other contradicting sources, we wouldn't carefully select the blog quote and run with it by itself.

I don't want to pretend that Green Eco Communities is in the same league as the NYT - I don't know them, they might even be more reputable, but absent qualifying statements in the article itself, or strongly worded disclaimers, the word of Green Eco Communities is acceptable, even when the original article may be denied as a source. Does this make sense? It is a rather abstruse point, and I'm writing off the top of my head, but I think I've summarized reasonably accurately.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I will just leave you with the Green Eco Communities advertising page which, similar to the "Where to Retire" advertising page (which can't be linked here because it is blacklisted), is all about how to increase sales of your "green community" homes. It's probably not in the same category as the NYT. I suspect that large real-estate developers can buy into all kinds of promotional stuff on the internet that they can't get from the NYT. For example, I called the Florida Green Building Coalition yesterday and was told that the developer paid $5000 to be "certified". Sadly, Harmony residents can't compete with anything like that.

Finally, at some point does the "request edit" template tag need to be removed Stephen? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I do catch your point that the source isn't great. However, you can't be seriously arguing that harmony isn't a masterplanned community, are you? You either know that it is, which makes it something other than a good faith request, or you honestly think it is not, which I cannot comprehend. As for the edit template, I've never seen this one before, so I'll let those mroe familiar with it close it.

Of the nine open requests, this is the most recent.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I have lived here since 2004 Stephen and I'm not sure what Harmony is or what it wants to be. Is it a master-planned community as defined by Wikipedia? That's debatable. Just look at the examples given in the article. After more than 12 years since the Harmony CDD was created on March 24, 2000, Harmony bears little resemblance to a nearby development that appears among the master-planned community examples, Celebration, Florida.

According to the Celebration article, it was started in 1996. I remember driving through Celebration a year before we moved to Harmony in 2004. It was pretty much then as it is now. Thus it took Celebration less than 7 years to mostly fulfill its plan. I am told that the plan for Harmony has changed several times since 2000. First it was to start with large lot homes. Then it was supposed to be zero lot line homes to include "affordable" housing with the "New Urbanism" look. Now according to the Florida Green Building Coalition report, affordable housing is no longer part of the plan (other than the effects of the real-estate crash).

Even before homes were built, Harmony started with a golf course that no reasonable person would describe as "green" (considering all of the chemicals used there). In fact, there was no mention in any of the early marketing materials of Harmony as a "green community". Yet now Harmony is supposedly a "green-certified community". Harmony was supposed to include a charter school. Then it switched to a public school, and so on, and so forth. "Master-planned"? I don't think so. "Amateur-planned" might be more accurate. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Come on GeorgeSchiro. You're wasting time trying to make your biased point again. I'm not a developer and even I know that the State of Florida requires large developments like Harmony to have a master plan. That does not mean a master plan cannot change. Those changes simply have to to be approved by the governing bodies that be. You might recall from past discussions that Harmony is a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). This designation requires even more stringent planning and development requirements. All of this can be confirmed through a simple Google search.Logiharmonyone (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Since there has been significant discussion of the proposed edit and there is clearly no consensus to make it, I am declining the edit request. That does not in any way preclude further discussion and an eventual decision to make this or a similar edit. I am, however, removing it from the list of requested COI edits. DES ^(talk) 14:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Request Edit 2

In the ongoing effort to make this article conform with Wikipedia's rigorous high standards, I would suggest that the following phrase:

   It was opened in 2003

from this sentence:

   It was opened in 2003 and ownership was 
   transferred to Starwood Capital Group in 2005.

be changed to:

   It was opened prior to 2003

or changed to:

   It was opened in 2000

The former change version is supported by the Dis-harmony? article while the latter change version is supported by public records that show the date of Harmony CDD creation to be March 24, 2000. Sadly, the public records are not available online. A phone call would be needed to verify the date. Does anyone ever do that?

Anyway, at a minimum the opening date claim requires a reference. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

A citation need not be online to be used. For example, we use books all the time. However, it would help if you provide the public records info so the reviewer can determine if it's an appropriate citation. User:King4057 (EthicalWiki) 17:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The article you cite above says that planning started with a "vision" in 1996, that a conservation director was hired in 2002, and that a named individual moved in in 2004. It does not say when the community opened, nor whether this was prior to 2003. (Unless I missed something.)

A simple fact such as a date need not be supported by an inline citation unless it is controversial or has been challenged. However you have now challenged it, so it should be cited and corrected if inaccurate. If you can post reference sources on this point it would be helpful. Perhaps a newspaper article on the opening would be available? It need not be available online if you can provide bibliographic information and a short relevant quote. Of course if one is online that is even better. DES ^(talk) 18:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I found http://www.harmonycdd.org/about-harmony which says that the district was established by local ordinance in March 2000. It does not say when the development was opened to occupancy, and it would be common for there to be a delay of a year or even three from the legal establishment of a community development district to the completion of a development (At least it would in NJ, not sure about Fl). OTOH, a period of months is also possible. DES ^(talk) 18:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate all of the reasoned feedback on this.

It seems to me that the real issue is the meaning of the word "opened" in this context. I am not sure if "opened" makes sense if the purpose of the original phrase was meant to convey how long the community has been "in development" or just when the first folks moved in. It seems that the developers could have put up a "for sale" sign in 2001 yet still not actually sold anything until 2003 or 2004. So what counts as "opened", the "for sale" sign or the first resident? IMHO, what really matters is how long the process has been taking. Perhaps we need to rephrase it from "It was opened in" to "It was created in" and use the one date for which we have a definitive source. Does that make sense? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 22:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I too think "opened" is a broad term that doesn't mean a whole lot in the context of land that has existed since the beginning of time. The development of Harmony took its first step toward fruition when the Harmony Development of Regional Impact was approved in January of 1995. See the third page of this PDF for the source. In light of this information, I would suggest that this sentence:

It was opened in 2003 and ownership was transferred to Starwood Capital Group in 2005.

Be changed to read:

The Harmony Development of Regional Impact was approved in 1995[cite the PDF linked above] and ownership was transferred to Starwood Capital Group in 2005.

This change provides a more official and definitive date for approval of the Harmony development and utilizes an official document from Osceola County to support the information.Logiharmonyone (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable (after the "beginning of time" crack). --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that a whole host of milestones or events need to be mentioned. I think the one salient year to mention is when the first residents moved in, which would be generally understood in English simple language to be when the community was "opened".

The article currently states that it was opened in 2003. The Orlando Sentinel article somewhat supports that: it mentions one resident who had moved in in 2004, and the article is dated in 2008 and is commenting about 5 years of the community. 2008 - 5 = 2003. I recognize it is not exact; the "five years" could have started in 2002 or 2004. I am right now changing the article to insert the word "approximately" so it will read "It was opened in approximately 2003 and ownership was transferred to Starwood Capital Group in 2005.[6][7]". If a reader questions what "opened" means, they can go to the supporting footnote number 6, and figure out 2008 - 5 years = 2003. There is no need to define what "opened" means; it is either obvious or a reader can figure it out from the context and from the reference.

I believe that the involved parties have not disputed 2003 being a first move-in date. Certainly approximately 2003 is close enough, and it is well enough supported by the Orlando Sentinel article. I suggest that should suffice. I don't think more detail about plan approval dates or other milestones are needed. My bigger point is that we have a short, factual article and it should stay that way for 6 months to a year unless there are serious problems. More editor time has been consumed by this article that it deserves. --doncram 14:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I support doncram's conclusion. Some sort of beginning date is useful, but unless there are claims about being the first something-or-other, or some other reason that the exact starting date is important, an approximate starting date as currently noted is sufficient. This is in contrast to a real person's birth date, where the exact date is often known. Ironically (and doncram knows far more about this than I do) an unplanned community might have more clearly defined dates—a date the first settler moved in, and a date that a town was incorporated. In contrast, when there is a planned community, there are quite a few relevant dates—the date someone started planning, the date some property was purchased, the date some plan was filed, the date ground-breaking occurred, the date the first property was sold to a resident, the date the first resident moved in, not to mention "official" opening dates, which may be none of these.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sphilbrick. Call this an intended-to-be-educational digression:

To clarify what Sphilbrick referred to as a claim "about being the first something-or-other", I give examples Larkin House, claimed to be the first two-story house in all of California; I.O.O.F. Hall (Mokelumne Hill, California), claimed to be the first 3-story building in California; and "Site of Home of Diego Sepulveda" (#380), built in the 1850s,the first two-story Monterey-style adobe built in Southern California" within List of California Historical Landmarks. Sphilbrick and I both mostly work on historic sites articles, where there are occasionally claims of this type. These claims go to the historic importance and wikipedia-notability of the sites, and sometimes these claims, though believed to be correct by writers of historic site nomination documents that are generally reliable sources on other matters, have turned out later to be wrong. How could someone know that there was never a two-story Indian cliffside dwelling in western California, I personally wonder. It seems important to document the best information of date, in such articles, so that the claims could be compared to competing claims about earliest dates, and so that articles can be corrected and enriched by links to one another. E.g. Olivas Adobe has another claim about becoming, in 1849, the first two-story adobe in its area of Southern California (does this contradict the Diego Sepulveda claim? maybe the claims about each should be mentioned in both articles).

Here in this article about one planned community in Florida, there is no claim about this having any notable "largest" or "earliest" or "most" something-or-another. There's no special importance about the opening date; that is more of a descriptive fact to state and as far as I understand it is not a controversial fact, either. --doncram 17:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sphilbrick's and doncram's comments above. DES ^(talk) 19:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Clear previously cited references in this Talk page, so that references in following comment display properly:

--doncram 19:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to drag it on (I am just now noticing the LONG Talk page history here), but how about this:

History

The Harmony Development of Regional Impact was approved in January 1995 and development plans for Harmony were first set in motion in 1996. The district was established by local ordinance in March 2000.

It was opened in approximately 2003 and ownership was transferred to Starwood Capital Group in 2005.

User:King4057 19:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks King4057 for your attention here. I inserted <references/> into your comment so that the suggested references would display. I note that one reference, to http://sire.osceola.org/sirepub/cache/2/g0pc45ekamttpvyawbplttiq/826587808202012090041127.PDF does not work for me when i click on it. I note that one reference 2 is a duplicative reference to the Orlando Sentinel article in reference 5; if cited twice it should be a single named reference cited twice, not two references. I personally think that this expansion is overkill and mildly prefer the simpler, current version of article, but if someone eelse chooses to implement this expansion I wouldn't mind terribly. --doncram 19:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yah, I was knowingly sloppy about it. The {{edit COI}} is disabled as "no consensus" to avoid draining even more editor resources into the (I know it's a larger than life question) of the exact date the community was "opened". However, I'll merely leave it here for consideration. I think there's a big problem with how we handle request edits, because editors are too hesitant to be bold, spawning this kind of excessive discussion, where a single editor's opinion would have been "good enough." Out of all the opinions expressed in this string, any one of them would have been fine.

As a frequent COI myself, I mostly do janitorial work for AfC, request edit, etc. (I am not bold), but I watch these closely because I believe in the Bright Line and do what I can to support it, such as contributing to creating the very templates on this page, but I think we need to be bolder to avoid making COIs squeeky wheels that drag whole teams of editors to wherever they go. It is acceptable that we may often make a poor or less-than-perfect call, just as many AfCs are not perfect. User:King4057 19:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I have implemented more or less the above text, except that in the absence of a working citation, I have dropped the fist clause with the 1995 date. I don't find that milestone highly important anyway. I also consolidated the duplicated citations. I have changed the Edit request template result to approved -- I wish there was an 'approved after discussion' option -- I may try to add one. DES ^(talk) 14:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What is Harmony?

Simple questions.

Is Harmony a place? Or is it a business? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 02:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

No one chose to comment on this try to start discussion on that point. Some discussion continues in "Harmony History" discussion item. I moved this item up before that one. --doncram 14:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting that no one has answered either of these questions doncram. Are they not at the center of what this article is really all about? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Harmony History

I can see that a new "History" section was recently added. That makes me wonder what's considered appropriate for the new section. What follows is a hypothetical to clarify what I mean.

Suppose Harmony had a mayor back in 2004 (we don't have a mayor, but just suppose). Let's say that he died a few years later. If we have a new mayor now, would the fact that we had a different mayor back in 2004 be appropriate to appear in the "History" section? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You might look at some articles on larger towns to see how mayors and other public officials are handled. Usually a history section would be for the history of the community itself, but there is no hard-and-fast rule about such things, it can be organized in whatever way seems best to the editors working on the page, with any differences of opinion discussed on the talk page. I will say that the current mayor of a municipality that has one should usually be included somewhere in the article, and a list of past mayors or another method, such as a succession box, to see past mayors is not uncommon. An example I happen to know is West Windsor Township, New Jersey which lists the current mayor and council members, but NOT previous office holders unless they are being mentioned for another reason. DES ^(talk) 16:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback DES. Actually, we have no mayor yet. I just thought a mayor would serve as a good example. Here's what I am specifically curious about.

Harmony had a charter school early in its history. It was heavily advertised and drew many families with children to Harmony. These were the so-called "pioneers" of Harmony. Would mention of the charter school be appropriate in the history section? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You have not suggested any reliable sources about that, I note. But to respond to the question, anyhow: No, it would not, IMO. Seems like not a major, defining part of Harmony (since it doesn't exist) and seems like a way to introduce complaint about the development, and complaints already having been discussed as basically undue in weight, if even mentioned, and not-encyclopedic. There is nothing important for a world-wide encyclopedia in the idea that complaints exist, that there are disappointments in any planned community. Of course there are. Also there is nothing important about a charter school being tried and failing, for whatever reason. There are articles in wikipedia about some schools and not others. There is in fact a standard that has been developed about which are wikipedia-notable and deserve an article vs. which are not notable (you could find this standard with some browsing); as i recall i think the upshot is essentially that any current high school is notable, but not elementary or other schools unless there are special circumstances and documentation. There exist many failures of charter schools and basically they need neither an article nor mention in any other article. You could possibly prove me wrong, if there is some general article about charter school initiatives in Florida, then perhaps this failed charter school could also be mentioned there, if sufficient documentation exists, but I would not see it being appropriate to mention in the current Harmony short article. The current Harmony article has link to one Orlando Sentinel newspaper article with a contentious-enough title, attracting those readers interested in contention, already. I think the article should be considered frozen, done. Thanks. --doncram 21:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your continuing feedback doncram, but I must disagree with you about what you consider of historic value (or not). Here's what you wrote previously:

   I personally have edited many thousands of articles, 
   mostly about non-controversial topics of historic sites 
   like those linked from National Register of Historic 
   Places listings in Osceola County, Florida.

It seems to me that as an editor of many pages about "historic places" (similar to what I understand Sphilbrick has been doing over the years) you appear to undervalue the real history of places that are currently deemed "not historic", places that do not appear in the "National Register". Perhaps your extensive experience researching historic places is skewing your view of what facts are of value to "lesser" places like Harmony.

The charter school was the major feature of Harmony for years. That is my point. For you to simply dismiss it as having no value at all in an article about Harmony seems very unfair to me. If there is at least one reliable source about the charter school, what purpose is served by preventing this information from appearing in the article? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I gave a response to your hypothetical question, that basically i think No, if you went through some work to construct a suggested edit, I would probably be against putting it into the article for reasons i suggest. You are free, nonetheless, to identify sources that you think reliable and to compose a suggested addition to the article. --doncram 23:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your flexibility doncram. I will see what I can find. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If there were significant discussion of it in reliable sources the charter school might belong in then article. If so it could go in history or in its own section, but watch out for WP:UNDUE. DES ^(talk) 19:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay. Public records requests sometimes take a long time to come back.

According to Osceola County School District records, the "Harmony Neighborhood School, Inc." (aka "Arthur J. Gallagher Neighborhood School") was chartered by a contract signed by then superintendent of Osceola County schools, Blaine Muse, on August 27, 2001 (see page 33 of "CHARTER BETWEEN THE SCHOOL BOARD OF OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA AND HARMONY NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOL, INC.". The charter was also signed by then President of Harmony Development Company, James Lentz and his wife Martha on September 5, 2001.

This is from minutes of the June 6, 2006 Osceola County School Board meeting (see page 31):

   Superintendent Muse stated that the Board of Directors 
   of the Harmony Neighborhood School have unanimously 
   voted to dissolve the School Charter as of July 1, 
   2006.  They have requested that the School Board take 
   over the operation of the existing school as a Public 
   School until the completion of the elementary school 
   which is planned to open August, 2008.

According to minutes of July 11, 2006 Osceola County School Board meeting (see page 22), a "Public School Mitigation Agreement between Birchwood Acres Limited Partners, LLLP, and the School District of Osceola County, Florida" ended the school charter thereby handing the school over to the public school district.

When DES refers to "significant discussion", I'm not sure what that means in the context of a little failed charter school. Did the charter school produce scholars and athletes written about in the local papers? No. I haven't heard of any charter schools for primary education (even the successful ones) that get much write-up in newspapers. Anyway, here's where the school has been written about by reliable sources:

• SDOC Current Enrollment as of 4/27/2006
• SDOC Current Enrollment as of 5/5/2006
• 2005-2009 SDOC Mobility Rates
• Harmony Neighborhood School, Inc. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, Year Ended June 30, 2006
• School Grades Hold Line
• Title I Schools Face Changes
• Honor Roll
• Comedy night

Does all of the above rise to the level of significant discussion? Perhaps not, but it does prove that the charter school existed for half of Harmony's history.

Don't historians researching Harmony decades from now deserve a little help researching this topic? Why suppress this information? Also, DES admonishes us to "watch out for WP:UNDUE" for fear that the charter school (which was the main draw to Harmony for half its history) may be given "undue weight". Golly, I really don't get that. Perhaps someone can explain it to me. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 11:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see what's so noteworthy about a charter school that no longer exists and was replaced by a brand new highly rated elementary school several years ago...Logiharmonyone (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There's not significant coverage of the Gallagher school in any of the suggested sources. I've looked at them all. Also there is mention of a former charter school in the Orlando Sentinel article already cited in the wikipedia article, but there's not enough information in any or all of these sources put together to say anything significant. I agree it provides evidence that the school did exist. Editor GeorgeSchiro didn't actually suggest any specific wording to add to the wikipedia article, I note. I agree with GeorgeSchiro's "perhaps not" acknowledgement that there's nothing significant to say. Thanks for trying, I guess. --doncram 01:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to establish that the real history of a business or a place is not what is actually important, according to Wikipedia standards. Thanks doncram. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 02:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It isn't that Wikipedia doesn't care about the "real history" it is that Wikipedia cares that added information to an article can be verified. Someone might know that a particular school existed, and was important to them because they were there and remember it. However, if no one ever reported on this in a newspaper, or wrote about it in a book, or discussed it on a local television show, or documented it in some formal way that can be reviewed by others, we choose not to include that information. Not because we deem it unimportant, but because we haven't been able to distinguish that "fact" from another "fact" that someone might honestly think they recall, or yet another "fact" that someone makes up. Do you have a suggestion on how we might make such a distinction? That is, something other than our current rule, which is that it must be verifiable with a reliable source? --SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely respect your opinion Stephen, especially since you choose to convey it using your real name. That said, I have provided 8 links above to reliable sources documenting the existence of the charter school from 2001 to 2006. Each link serves to verify the school's existence. Thus it is a well-established proven fact. What more do you need? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As previously stated, I think that it has now been clearly established that in the case of this article at least, the real and provable history of Harmony, FL matters less than other nebulous factors about the overall purpose of Wikipedia. Thank you for that clarification folks. I will add that it is curious to note that while Wikipedia considers Harmony's "green certification" notable and reliable (by some dubious source obviously paid for by the Harmony developer), Wikipedia simultaneously considers government records about the long standing charter school either unreliable or not noteworthy. Curious indeed. --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 11:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

As previously stated, maybe mostly at your Talk page, I advised you to consider contributing to Wikipedia in other articles not close to your most important personal issue areas. You would be welcome to contribute in other areas, and then you'd become more informed, eventually, about judgments that Wikipedia editors make. One article that I started recently, Curtiss & Bright, about Florida developers and their works, is one that needs work. I think it is a valid topic, as the partnership has notable National Register-listed works, separate from article about Curtiss alone, but the article needs development. I would welcome your contributing to that article and/or commenting at its Talk page. Anyhow, I think that moving away would be more productive than having debate explicitly about this Harmony, Florida article. --doncram 14:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your encouragement doncram, but please try to understand that I don't even have time for this article let alone any others at the moment. I have a family and a full-time job. I am paying an underwater mortgage and 3 college educations. Any spare time is spent trying to improve the makeup of the Osceola County School Board. I do this out of necessity, not as a hobby. That said, however much the developer wants to hide the truth about Harmony's past or however difficult it is to prove the facts to Wikipedia editors, I will persevere. Someone has to do it. So I force myself. As is a citizen journalist I consider it my civic duty, not a hobby. Does that make sense doncram? --GeorgeSchiro (talk) 10:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)