Talk:Burning Man

Please try and make contributions to this article encyclopedic. This is not a brochure for Burning Man but rather an encyclopedia article about Burning Man so please avoid the tones of an insider and fan of the event (e.g. avoid advice for prospective participants, laudatory statements, or waxing philosophical unless you can attribute the views to a published source).

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

Archives
July 2003 – August 2005 August 2005 – October 2005 October 2005 – September 2006

Jan/Feb 2008 clean up and expansion

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

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

Burning Man has developed a reputation for drug use, which is not tolerated by law enforcement.

In 2001, local law enforcement objected to an art installation depicting a homosexual act at a former camp called "Jiffy Lube" now renamed "Stiffy Lube." The art was moved to a more private area of the camp, giving rise to charges of censorship and homophobia from a number of quarters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This article needs some serious work

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

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

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

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

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

Airport travel brochure--inappropriate style

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

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

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

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

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

Sourcing and Purging

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

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

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

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

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

Policing and Regulations moving second paragraph out until cited

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

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

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

Philosophizing without attributing

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

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

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

Published material on sexuality at BM

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

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

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

Clean-up

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

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

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

Info about German soldier executions sounds speculative

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

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

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

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

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

Quotation Punctuation

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

(Ahem) encyclopedic cleanup

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

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

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

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

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

Green Tortoise

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

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

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

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

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

see also section: Rainbow Gathering etc.

Please keep see also section limited to directly related articles. Famous attendees (Harrod Blank) and festivals having some remote similarity to BM (e.g. Rainbow Gatherings) don't count, as there is no direct relation between the two events, other than having a few people that probably attend both. The see also section would get out of hand if we included every festival that was remotely like BM.Brentt 23:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean this article isn't supposed to be all things to all people?!  ;) You've done a great job monitoring and maintaining, Brentt. Thank you for your efforts. —XSG 03:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

A "festival" or "event"?

The folks at Burning Man have recently written

Burning Man is an event, the Event, the Project, Black Rock City...but not a FESTIVAL.

So it's NOT: "the 2007 Burning Man Festival" it's "Burning Man 2007"

It's a somewhat significant issue when it comes to the perception that "festivals" in america have music and vending (and even around the world). By removing the word we begin to remove ANY expectations of what Burning Man is...and as we all know even if a festival has no vending...it's hardly defined as just a "festival".

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

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

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

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

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

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

From: LadyBee

Date: May 24 2007 - 1:24pm

from our media director:

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

The fact of the matter is...

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

It's Burning Man

It's the Burning Man Project.

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

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

cheers = BEE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questionable history moved from article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harvey has said that the name "Burning Man" came to him when he was watching a video of one of the Baker Beach burns. A member of the crowd had shouted out "Wicker Man!", suggesting that the burning of the wooden effigy was somehow related to the ancient Celtic ritual of the Wicker Man, signifying rebirth.

Harvey said "I figured we needed a good name if people were going to call it that crap. Wood Man? Burning Man? OK. Burning Man. It felt right.... It was very much a carpentry deal. A fellow ship of carpenters. Like my father being a Freemason. 'Burning Man' is a great [multivalent] name because it's an action, an object, and a shared experience all at once."

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

JKPrivett 05:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

John Law Suing Larry Harvey, et. all

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

External links May 2007

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

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

BLM

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

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

Why no controversies?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burn Burning Man Movement

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

Deaths

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

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

History vs Timeline

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

Merger proposal

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

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

Burning Man in Popular Culture

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

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

decommodification

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

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

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

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

dates of festival

the article states

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

Undescribability poetry in introduction

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

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

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

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

Unnecessary hyperbole

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

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

Neutral Milk Hotel

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

The specific lyrics are:

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

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