Talk:Bismarck, North Dakota

United States: North Dakota Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Dakota portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Dakota (assessed as Top-importance).

Cities: Regional capitals

	Cities portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities articles
	This article is supported by the project's regional capital taskforce.

What About The Mandan?

The Mandan Native American Tribe was centered around Bismarck-Mandan's current location.[1] In fact the only thing that seperates Bismarck from a State Historical Site that holds the remains of one of the largest Mandan camps recorded is Fort Abraham Lincoln National Park. So why does wikipedia constantly put White Europeans first in the human interaction with the current Bismarck location on the Heart-and Missouri confluence?→[4] Are Native Americans not people? They are history just like Europeans I would like to see an expanding section on this topic.[2] Thanks I would like to include this piece of evidence on this subject.

(from this link→[3](btw I am using this piece of article to show evidence in depth to those who wish to discriminate the Native American race from sites like Wikipidea) The first recorded visit to the Mandan was that by the Sieur de la Verendrye in 1738. About 1750 they were settled near the mouth of Heart river in 9 villages, 2 on the east and 7 on the west side. Remains of these villages were found by Lewis and Clark in 1804. Having suffered severely from smallpox and the attacks of the Assiniboin and Dakota, the inhabitants of the two eastern villages consolidated and moved up the 'Missouri to a point opposite the Arikara. The same causes soon reduced the other villages to 5 whose inhabitants subsequently joined those in the Arikara entry, forming 2 villages, which in 1776 were likewise merged. Thus the whole tribe was reduced to 2 villages, Metutanke and Ruptari, situated about 4 miles below the month of Knife river, on opposite sides of the Missouri. These two villages were visited by Lewis and Clark in 1804. In 1837 they were almost destroyed by smallpox, only 31 souls out of 1,600, according to one account, being left, although other and probably more reliable counts make the number of survivors from 125 to 145. After that time they occupied a single village. In 1845, when the Hidatsa removed front Knife river, some the Mandan went with them, and others flowed at intervals.

Let Native Americans share the history of Bismarck. Wikipedia shoudn't just record European history. Now I would be delighted if I didn't have to make an article myself. But thats what is gonna happen.

Bismark

Just wondering, when you type in Bismark from wikipedia.com the site brings you to a German town that nobody has heard of. Why not route the site here to a town that is a capital? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.15.100.162 (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this is no longer a problem though it is always helpful to type in "Bismarck" a lot of people forget the "C". Mkomboti (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History?

Also could someone add something about the history of Bismarck please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GaffaUK (talk • contribs)

Couldn't hurt to do a little research - after all, I've got all summer. Sschwols (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whenever the history section is expanded it is deleted. Can someone else help expand it because every time I add anything, like a sentence rephrasement or something it is deleted within an hour. I gave yoiu a number of sources who believe Bismarck was first a settlement of the Mandan Tribes but you stick to this routine outline that it was founded in the 1880s or something with it first being "known" (I don't know who would have "knowed" a place as "Missouri Crossing" in the 1880s) but the point is I see no source for that I don't even know where that assumption came from. Then the History section makes it a memorable day that the town was named "Edwinton" yes that is true but that is a very minor piece of history and should not be in the first paragraph of this "reliable article". Then whoever this Rivertorch person finds it amazing that Bismarck was named after Otto von Bismarck. New York was named after General York, LA was named after a missionary group. Big deal is my point. I would like to see some history, (the capitol burning at the least) in the so called History section. Isn't it wikipedia's job to present some information or is it to satisfy people like Rivertorch who like the page a simple, unexpanded, "unencyclopedic", article. I can't do anything to expand it, it seems no one can so unless someone has the guts to do what I am failing to do the history section will remain this "reliable" work of "encyclopedic art". If this did not convince "Rivertorch" to let the page expand then oh well, we tried our best. --Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)Global.Geo.Historic.Data[reply]

Your sources did not support the text you added. "This Rivertorch person" spent the better part of an hour looking for online sources that would support the gist of the text you added vis-a-vis Mandan communities being at (not near) what is now Bismarck. He failed in this, so he added a simple sentence that was properly sourced noting that the Mandans had resided in the area. It seemed prudent to mention that there were people in the area before the city was founded; it did not seem prudent to ramble on at length about the Mandan people's living arrangements and culture, which would be way peripheral to the topic of the article even if a reliable source were found to place them where Bismarck now stands. It's true that "this Rivertorch person" removed the lengthy "recent history" text, which was OR-based and unverifiable, and is inclined to do so again if necessary. He hopes this won't be necessary and he dearly wishes that you would observe talk-page guidelines: your last edit here removed old comments you and your IP alter ego had made. Instead, please strike any past comments that no longer apply. Rivertorch (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... Why did all the information about Bismarck's history and culture vanish just when I needed it? I can find more information on Ask Jeeves! I don't know what to do anymore wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.137.168 (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On another topic, how could Bismarck possibly be "known as the hub city for the well known Lewis and Clark expedition" when it was not founded until 65 years after the expedition took place?! Would someone whose history knowledge is surer than mine please fix this reference!

Sarcasm

OMG!! OMG!! This is genius!! This is beyond genius!! The depth that was put into this article is unbelieveably superb!! I mean, mentioning that Bismarck was named for the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck?? Truly an expert historian, wise beyond his years, wrote this profound tribute to the gloriful city of Bismark, North Dakota. The hallowed halls of Wikipedia are truly graced by this magnificent work of philosophy and wisdom. Brava! Brava, to the noble author of "Bismark, North Dakota." I salute you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.188.209.100 (talk • contribs)

"What are you talking about. Of course Bismarck is named for Otto von Bismarck. More than half of the population claim German ancestry. Bismarck was a very influential figure during the cities formation. From Bismark.org, the official website of the city; "The prince is the heir of Otto von Bismarck for whom the city is named. Otto von Bismarck was the Prussian minister president and imperial chancellor from 1862 to 1890 and is noted for his contribution to the creation and shaping of the modern German state." http://www.bismarck.org/city_departments/department/news_detail.asp?dID=4&ID=232 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.78.85 (talk • contribs)

Global Geo just fixed that problem. More data is available now on the subject of Bismarck's history

Notable residents

Personally, I think the three people currently listed (Carmen Berg, Leslie Bibb, Neil Churchill) under "Notable residents" are not notable enough to even be included in such a list. --Matth e wUND^(talk) 06:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you guys listing your mayor and former mayors as a notable residents? Every town has a mayor. That doesn't make them notable. JettaMann (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sister cities

I can't find anything on any sister cities...does Bismarck have any??? --MatthewUND^(talk) 07:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bismarck, North Dakota has no official sister cities. But it is cooperative with cities like Berlin, Germany, it has named night clubs after the city. Also Paris, France, the city was mapped with the city Paris in mind.

Global.Geo.Historic.Data

Bismarck Sports and Culture

MatthewUND, could you please restore my changes to the Bismarck Page? All I did was expand on two areas that needed expanding, and I feel that my version is easier to read. Also, can you please add Liberty Memorial Bridge to the site?208.107.168.154 00:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm happy to see new users contribute to articles and I appreciate your edits to this article. The recreation and sports sections did need expansion and much of what you added was great material. However, some of your text sounded a bit more like something that would come out of a Bismarck visitor's guide instead of in an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia articles must always maintain a neutral point of view. Also, I think some of your additions actually went into a bit too much depth for this article. This article is about the city of Bismarck so I don't think very specific information about athletic programs at individual high schools or colleges should be found here. These institutions have their own articles so detailed information would probably be better off in those articles. Also, I don't think we need individual sections for each season of the year and the sports that are popular during those seasons...that's overkill for this city article and would be better off in a Sports in Bismarck, North Dakota article. --MatthewUND^(talk) 04:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capital

For the record, I am reverting this edit for the second time because it is an extraordinary claim and demands a reliable source. If the information is accurate, a reliable source shouldn't be difficult to find. I have left a message for the convenience of the IP editor who is adding the text in question. I don't know how many editors are watching this article, but if the IP editors adds it for a third time without sourcing it and no one else reverts promptly, it will need to go to WP:RFC. Rivertorch (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Similar text has been added again, and with it some troubling new text that clearly is original research (opinion, actually). For instance:

"With the peace and unity of the three dominate cultures of Bismarck, Native American Culture, the Catechism of the Catholic Church , and of course Popular culture, Bismarck is truely a place full of culture."
"During the fall Halloween is very important to the culture of Bismarck. Children participate in non-Christian activities regardless of the Christian demands of the holy day November 1st."
"Seniors are respected and Native American culture is never forgotten. Although Christian culture has affected much of Bismarck's culture Bismarck is very respectful to other religions although a Bismarck culture is clearly Christian based."

More eyes are needed on this article, so I have just requested comment (see section below). Rivertorch (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response, I live in Bismarck, this section was my summary of the texts on Bismarck Cultures inside the Capitol Building above downtown Bismarck. Also I have researched with historians at Bismarck State College to find the top Bismarck related cultures are Native American, Catechism of the Catholic Church (catholic related cultures) and of course Popular Culture. Halloween is one of the most "buzzing" holidays since it is just before the end of fall. Almost everyone (of course) participates which I have stated to add to the knowledge of Bismarck's Culture. Seniors are very respected the "Patterson Place" is in downtown Bismarck residents all around Bismarck are in a sense respected. (Part of the culture). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk • contribs) 22:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is questioning your own experience with or knowledge of Bismarck. However, the standard at Wikipedia is verifiability; it is one of the core policies here and cannot be dismissed, regardless of how familiar you are with the subject of the article. If you would take some time to familiarize yourself with some of the more relevant policies and guidelines here, I have no doubt that your contributions could be very valuable. As it is, the text you have added has major problems with original research, verifiability, and neutrality as well as a host of lesser issues (e.g., "how-to" information, peacock language, general style issues, etc.) Unless you address the major problems very soon, I'm afraid it will be a case of the baby going out with the bathwater. I don't want that to happen, and I'll bet you don't either. Please start by reading the policies. If you do that, I'll be more than happy to work with you on integrating much of your text into the article in a way that is consistent with Wikipedia principles. Rivertorch (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will erase the information if it has spiked controversy in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.137.168 (talk) 22:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy isn't the issue. The issue is policy violations. I have updated the RFC and also posted to the NOR noticeboard. Rivertorch (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why is their no history, culture or any information about Bismarck ND on wikipedia?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.137.168 (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is stopping you adding it: the problem is adding it in a form that's in breach of multiple policies and guidelines. I suggest you read the documents Rivertorch mentioned above, and try again. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Sadly, IP 96.3.137.168/User:Global.Geo.Historic.Data, you tried again but obviously didn't read the documents first. I have reverted your edits, which run afoul of multiple policies and guidelines and are against consensus. Please do not add them again. Once again, I extend my offer to work with you to incorporate appropriate text into the article, and I'm guessing that other editors would work with you, too. But you simply must familiarize yourself with the basic policies here, which forbid original research, and enter the discussion here in a meaningful way (i.e., actually address what people are saying to you). Will you do that? Rivertorch (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway it is time that you stop degrading a place with so much history and culture. This Wikipedia page should be full of information that is spelled correctly at the least. I would like you to realize the complaints of others that there is no input from Wikipedia about Bismarck's history or culture. This has not changed for over a year. Please realize that the information proposed here is in all ways verifiable. If you do not think so research it yourself and stop degrading this place by being lazy. “Ask Jeeves.com” indeed does have more information which is sad. It would be nice if more pictures would be allowed as well. Please check Fargo, North Dakota's Wikipedia profile. It is full of pictures and history and culture. Why is Bismarck, North Dakota (please compare) not the same? I would be relieved if you would allow my posts to be permitted and stop talking about all of this nonsense because it is annoying. I worked hard on those articles to make them as reliable as possible by a human and then you go and say "it must be verifiable" well it is please stop this right now Bismarck deserves better than this and we do need an easier way to quickly find information about this place and transmit and tell to vacationers and people that have decided to build a home here. It is your responsibility to stop acting like so. I am very disapointed that this website could not deal with this situation better. Delete my contributions and hours of work if you want. I can't stop you but I at least hope that you would try to build a profile on Bismarck more like Fargo, North Dakota's.

Thank You.

GLOBAL>GEOGRAPHIC>HISTORICAL>DATA

Please see the discussion directly below this. An RFC was filed with the Wikipedia community as a whole as to whether your edits should remain. They were found to be original research and blatant violations of copyright. If you disagree with the consensus, you need to discuss the issue and come to a new consensus. Edit warring and constantly pushing your version, despite much opposition, will not help. Thank you. --13² 19:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we do not disagree with the sentiment of improving this article. However, we do disagree with the way you're going about it. --13² 19:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironicly that is incorrectly stated as I would like you to leave me a link of the copyrighted website of which my article was incorreclty notioned as a "violation" my article on culture was an original, you are again ignoring the fact that wikipedia is failing to serve as an encyclopedia. I give up. Whatever. This was not my intention.

No thanks. Global.Geo.Historic.Data —Preceding unsigned comment added by Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk • contribs) 19:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The copyrighted material is linked below. I've even given examples where your addition violated WP:COPYVIO. I'd really prefer you try to discuss this with us so we can all be happy with the outcome. You're taking this way too personally. You need to step back, look at this objectively, see where we are coming from, and then acknowledge our concerns and work with us to fix this. Until you do that though, it's just going be frustrating for all involved. --13² 20:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been dealing with multiple crises off-wiki for several days and am still not reliably "back", but I'll respond here and below to the recent developments as briefly (but thoroughly) as I can.

First, a procedural matter. Global.Geo.Historic.Data: please use a signature when you post to talk pages. Typing four tildes (i.e., ~~~~) at the end of each post automatically places your name and stamps the time and date of your post. This allows other editors to more easily discern who said what and when.

Second, Global.Geo.Historic.Data, your comment above reveals some apparent misunderstandings about the objectives of Wikipedia and the intended functions of its articles:

This article does not exist to "transmit" information on Bismarck to "vacationers and people that have decided to build a home" there; that would be the function of various other Web sites, such as those belonging to local tourism offices, chambers of commerce, real estate offices, and the like. Wikipedia is not in competition with AskJeeves.com or any other Web site; it is a volunteer effort funded by a nonprofit foundation, written for a very broad readership. The first of Wikipedia's "Five Pillars" states explicitly that "editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here" and that "Wikipedia is not...an advertising platform". Articles on cities aren't exempt; they need to be as neutral and objective as possible, never promotional or laudatory, never trying to influence, never offering advice.
Advising another editor to "research it yourself and stop degrading this place by being lazy" may, depending on how you mean it, indicate a lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policy forbidding original research. As the editor adding disputed text, the burden is on you to provide citations from reliable sources—generally secondary sources—which support that text. Absent your doing so, policy demands that the text be removed.
While it may be regrettable that some Wikipedia articles are less comprehensive than others, it is better to have a smaller amount of verifiable content than any amount of unverifiable content. As Wikipedia grows and becomes ever more utilized, this is especially so. Our readership's confidence that what they're reading on Wikipedia is as accurate and objective as possible—our credibility as an encyclopedia, in other words—depends on our keeping opinions, unsourced information, and undue weight out of articles. We rely on the admittedly daunting alphabet soup of policies and guidelines to make that possible, as we're doing in this case. Rivertorch (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Resolved

Do these unsourced edits violate policy on original research and neutrality? Rivertorch (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly original research. The actual content might be OK for neutrality if true, but the whole thing has an anecdotal style that's not very encyclopedic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that with GordonofCartoon. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the new text is not suitable for Wikipedia as it is too informal and has too many opinions ("The significance of Bismarck culture is realized because of its difference from other cultures in North Dakota"), and sources are needed. However, as the work of a new contributor, possibly with a lot to offer, we should proceed cautiously without biting too much. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with that too. The way to go would be to reintroduce this material incrementally with checking: maybe bring the draft here for analysis? To be even-handed about this: a deal of the existing material about Bismarck is also unsourced. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to RFC and noticeboard respondents: The text in question was removed and is no longer in the article at this time. However, I still would welcome further comments from anyone who cares to look at the diff. Rivertorch (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Update: User:Global.Geo.Historic.Data (aka IP 96.3.137.168) has restored the text again two more times—editing against consensus, without using summaries, and without engaging in discussion here on the talk page—despite being warned repeatedly by multiple editors. It's a shame, because much of the material could have been incorporated into the article with proper sourcing and judicious editing. I was quite willing to collaborate to expand the article, as I made clear, but I'm afraid my stores of good faith are running low at this point. Rivertorch (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - addition is unusable without being referenced and some of it could be more encyclopedic in style with less opinion. Although if somebody reworded it slighty to tone down the opinion and added fact tags where appropriate it might encourage readers to supply reliable sources. I am sure the factual info could be sourced perhaps the original contributer could be encouraged to help. After a time if no sources are added the info can be removed. MilborneOne (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely appears to be WP:OR, but the bigger problem is that most of it, or all of it, likely violates WP:COPYRIGHT. Every time I Googled portions of it hit came up, word-for-word, from here (pdf) and/or here. I'm a bit shocked this hasn't been brought up yet. This issue needs to be addressed first. --13² 16:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore that second link, it appears the version being discussed here is in place there. However, the issues with copyright still need to be addressed from the first link, which is not a copy/paste of this article. Most of the material lifted from that one was in the history section here. --13² 17:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked into this deeper and, while it's not word-for-word, it's pretty close. It would probably pass WP:COPYRIGHT, but I'm still a bit uneasy about it. It is though, without a doubt, the primary source the user used for research on the history section and a lot of it is very similar, both in wording and flow. --13² 17:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the text here:

"The strike lasted for weeks, and didn't come to an end until the declaration of martial law by Governor William Langer."

And the text there:

"The strike lasted for weeks, and resulted in several arrests and injuries. Governor William Langer declared martial law on June 1 to put an end to the strike.

So, clearly very similar, some wording exact, but still different. The same goes for the rest of the history section. --13² 17:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another example, from here:

"During World War II, Fort Lincoln, located just south of Bismarck, was converted into an internment camp to house German and Japanese civilians and POWs. It was the largest of such camps in the United States. By the time the camp closed in 1946, more than 4,030 prisoners had been detained there."

From there:

"During World War II, Fort Lincoln, located just south of Bismark, was turned into an internment camp to house German and Japanese civilians and POWs. The Fort Lincoln internment camp was the largest of such camps in the United States during the war. In the end, more than 4,030 prisoners had been held at the camp."

This actually is a violation of WP:COPYRIGHT. You can't just omit a few words and rearrange a sentence here and there. This absolutely cannot be included and I would suggest the same for the rest of the history section. Write it yourself or don't put it in. --13² 17:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the copyright issue should be solved - which might not be difficult, as I suspect the editor posting its content here isn't a million miles from the author - the online Randy Hoffman book doesn't look a reliable source. It's self-published, and gives no citations for the information it contains. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is exactly correct. --13² 18:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Great research, 13²! I saw enough grammatical problems in the text that it didn't even occur to me that it might have been largely lifted from elsewhere. So, in addition to WP:OR, WP:V, WP:N, and a host of problems relating to grammar and style, we also have WP:COPYVIO. I think we have utterly clear consensus that the material is unacceptable. I'll give it another day and, with no objections, close the RFC. Thanks to all who participated. (Per MilborneOne, I will also begin looking to see if anything in the text is salvageable and sourceable. Unfortunately, the original contributor has thus far chosen not to collaborate in any way.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you might want to check over History of Bismarck, North Dakota for the same reason. It appears very likely that

Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk · contribs)
Randy394 (talk · contribs)
96.3.137.168 (talk · contribs)

are the same editor. The level of sourcing is pretty poor for a number of articles - e.g. Patterson Hotel - created by Randy394. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. (Sighs as his to-do list grows ever longer). Rivertorch (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You all thought I was crazy but I finally found a source. You were wrong and I was right. I find that hilarious. :P --Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Global.Geo.Historic.Data[reply]

Always glad to be a source of hilarity ;-) In all seriousness, though, no one called you crazy or wrong. We said your edits were unacceptable, chiefly because they violated core policies. I am reverting your most recent edits because the first source—the state historical society page—doesn't support what you wrote, the second source isn't a reliable source, the text you added is replete with spelling and grammatical errors, and you evidently made no attempt to comply with guidelines concerning inline citations. You said "farewell" over two weeks ago, and now you're back, still apparently without a basic understanding of how Wikipedia works. May I suggest you make some effort on that front? Here is an excellent place to start.

Fwiw, I have begun reviewing reliable sources, in print and online, with an eye to both fleshing out this article and fixing History of Bismarck, North Dakota, which has major issues. I welcome the help of anyone willing to respect the spirit, if not always the exact letter, of the rules.

On a procedural note, the RFC closed some time ago and no further additions should be made to this thread. I was remiss in not marking it "resolved", and I will do that now. Rivertorch (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Draft text from Global.Geo.Historic.Data

First of all this is an original piece of information I intended for wikipedia since the Bismarck page has very little to no reliable information, and the information on this page does little to no help at all to the "Bismarck Tourism Center" which had relied on me to get the profile on Bismarck larger. I have already requested more pictures which I do not have but through the sources listed below I have revised the history article for the profile. The Sources Are Listed Here.

World Book; Year Book Spotlight: Bismarck (encyclopedia/yearbook)

The History of Ft. Abraham Lincoln (book)

On A Slant Indian Village State Historical Site Memorial (Memorial head stone)

Bismarck Tourism Center's Report on the History of Bismarck (book)

Maps.com

Wikipedia

[4]

A revisioned post is posted by me below.

Very near Bismarck is a national park named after Abraham Lincoln. Within this park are numerous Native American “earth lodge” ruins that are left behind from Mandan Tribes. It is unknown when the Mandan tribes left present day Bismarck, but it is confirmed that the Arikara and Hidatsa tribes also fought for the area. The Mandan tribes have been completely whiped out for unknown causes. The Sioux may have possibly exiled the Mandan. But years before, Bismarck was nothing more than a riverbank surrounded by cottonwood tree forests.

At a place formerly regarded as nothing more than the Missouri Crossing, was a village that would become present-day Bismarck, it was founded in 1872 and bestowed the name Edwinton, in honor of Edwin Ferry Johnson (1803–1872), who was a distinguished and honorable civil engineer and was engineer-in-chief for the Northern Pacific Railway from June 1866 to November 1870. In 1873 the Northern Pacific Railway decided to change the village’s name. (Because it was quickly becoming a town) and renamed it “Bismarck”, after the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck, in an attempt to lure German immigrants to settle along its route. But the discovery of gold within the Black Hills in 1874 was the first sign for growth.

Bismarck rose to become the capital city of the Dakota Territory in 1883 and of the state of North Dakota in 1889. Bismarck was rumored back then for being an outlaw town with no laws and no limits. Bismarck also was a place where the beauty of North Dakota is said to begin and a said to be a place of peace and growing success. But the survival of Bismarck was dependent on that of Northern Pacific, which had barely survived bankruptcy and continued the railroad. Upon emerging from bankruptcy, construction immediately commenced on a $1 million bridge to span the Missouri River. The first passenger train crossed the Missouri River in 1882, bringing a unstoppable amount of traffic to the area.

The territorial capital of Dakota Territory was moved from Yankton to Bismarck in 1883, slowly gaining Bismarck recognition in the national spotlight. Local political boss Alexander McKenzie is noted for achieving the new role for Bismarck. When the Dakota Territory was split into two states North Dakota, and South Dakota, Jamestown, ND was set to be the new state capitol for North Dakota. Bismarck was back then rather an outlaw city causing some citizens of Bismarck to basically raid Jamestown for the state records in a January blizzard.

As soon as the state records were back in Bismarck, construction on the first capitol building was completed in 1884, stopping all accusations for the capital city of North Dakota to be moved to Jamestown. The very first hospital in North Dakota and South Dakota, was Saint Alexius, it was founded in 1885. Like most of the country, the 1890s were turmoil for North Dakota. The Panic of 1893 was the nation's worst economic hardship to that point, and North Dakota's strong agriculture-based economy was directly affected. To make matters worse, Bismarck was struck by a severe fire in August 1898 and it destroyed much of the city. After the 1898 fire, Bismarck was forced with the unthinkable task of rebuilding a very large portion of the city, including a majority of its downtown. Buildings from this point onward were built mostly of brick and concrete, and often advertised as "fire proof" to keep people calm.

Two large and luxurious hotel complexes were constructed at this time. Hotel McKenzie, (later renamed Patterson Hotel), opened on January 1, 1911, followed by Grand Pacific Hotel in 1912. Both of the hotels served as Bismarck's largest hotels for decades. Some of the United States’ presidents stayed at the famous Patterson Hotel including Theodore Roosevelt

The first state capitol that was the former Dakota Territory capital building was destroyed by fire on December 28, 1930. The loss totaled $2 million, and North Dakota was faced to construct a new capitol in the midst of the Great Depression. Much of the documented records on the history and current events (of that time) on Bismarck were lost in the fire creating controversy over correct information for a great deal of time. The fire was rumored to have been started by the janitor, this was somewhat true, but it was not intentional, an oily rag caught fire in a closet burning the capital almost to the ground. Some senior residents of Bismarck recall being bystanders for the event.

They had chosen to construct an art deco skyscraper, which would tower over the city at 19 stories when completed in 1934. With a simple outside look, and with an expensive, glamorous, design on the inside, it was nicknamed "The Prarie Palace" it still remains the tallest building in North Dakota. Construction of the capitol did not go smoothly, however. Laborers constructing the new capitol decided to go on strike on May 13, 1933. The strike lasted for weeks, and didn't come to a stop until the declaration of martial law by Governor William Langer. The new capitol was completed in 1934, but the news of its completion through the Great Depression was buried beneath that of the removal of Governor William "Wild Bill" Langer, who was found guilty on two felony convictions. The North Dakota Supreme Court ordered Langer out of office, to be replaced with his Lieutenant Governor Ole Olson. As a response, Langer declared North Dakota's succession from the United States, then called a special legislative session, where he would proclaim "I am still your governor" and asked for the impeachment of Ole Olson and the Supreme Court justices which was of course not granted.

During World War II, Fort Lincoln, located very near south of Bismarck, was converted into an internment camp to house for German and Japanese civilians and POWs. It was in fact the largest of such camps in the United States. By the time the camp was closed in 1946, more than an estimated 4,030 prisoners were detained there. The camp had initially been established as a military post in 1895 to replace Fort Abraham Lincoln located south of Mandan. The closure of the Garrison Dam occurred in April 1953, just one year after the city's major flooding. The dam's completion resulted in the creation of the nation's third largest man-made lake, Lake Sakakawea.

For the very first time in history, the city could expand south of the railroad without fears of major flooding. For decades, downtown Bismarck served as the regional hub for business, but like most cities, change was just around the corner.

Interstate 94 was completed in 1965, creating a second vehicular bridge, the Grant Marsh Bridge. The new highway moved traffic to the north, greatly affecting businesses in the downtown, which were reliant on U.S. Highway 10 (known as Main Avenue through Bismarck). Kirkwood Mall opened in 1970 just blocks from downtown Bismarck, forever changing Bismarck's retail trend. The mall was very large to the people of Bismarck and remained the largest mall in North Dakota for years. Woolworth's and Montgomery Ward were the first major retailers to leave downtown when they anchored Kirkwood. Sears and A.W. Lucas left to anchor Gateway Mall when it opened in 1979. It was also at this time that BEST Products opened its doors in south Bismarck. “JC Penney” was last of the national department stores to leave downtown Bismarck to anchor Kirkwood's new wing in 1980. Kmart was the first discount department store to arrive in October 1971. The start of the new millennium brought some of the worst storms ever recorded in the region. Just three years earlier, the worst winter storm since March 1966 buried the region in seventeen inches of snow. The resulting 1996-1997 winter season currently holds the record for the most snowfall recorded. On November 2, 2000, a series of tornadoes touched down in and around the city. The tornadoes caused only limited damage, however it was the latest recorded tornadoes ever in North Dakota. The winter season of 2008–2009 was one of the worst ever recorded in Bismarck’s history, December 2008 recorded more snow than any other single month; and the season itself ended in second place for most snowfall, only 1.4 inches from the all-time record of 1996–1997. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk • contribs) 03:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Global.Geo.Historic.Data[reply]

First I want to thank you for coming here to discuss this. We need to come to something we can all agree with. I can't spend too much time on this right now; I just wanted to thank you for coming here. I know the article is protected, but, still, it does mean something for you to try discussing, especially considering the messages on your user talk page. --13² 04:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an important issue if you want to save the wikipedia reputation. This profile right now lists little to no reliable information. It's like a math book listing telephone numbers and radio stations along with the occasional "cool fact!" "Bismarck was named after otto von Bismarck" yeah thats reliable. But that is common sense can we please stop discussing already confirmed stuff (maybe not to you) but its getting annoying.

signed-Global.geo.historic.data

Hokay. Firstly, I suggest taking the whole discussion to Talk:History of Bismarck, North Dakota. All that's needed here at Bismarck, North Dakota is a brief summary, because the history section has aleady been split off on grounds of length.

Secondly: thanks also for coming to discuss this. But please read WP:V and WP:RS; hopefully they'll clear up some misunderstandings. Newcomers, especially experts on a topic, commonly feel very insulted because they feel their personal integrity and reliability are being questioned. They're not. It's just that in order to function on a freely-editable basis where no-one's identity can be known for sure, Wikipedia works not on personal say-so, but on provision of external sources of agreed reliability (with specific identification of what details come from where). If the article says Bismarck was named after Otto von Bismarck, there should be a citation so the reader knows it wasn't named after someone else in the Bismarck dynasty or a grain merchant called Jack Bismarck. That's why people have complained about lack of citation.

It really would be far preferable if we didn't have to thrash this out via Talk page, and could just work in the normal manner of collectively editing the article(s) direct. But that does require that you buy into the Wikipedia groundrules. Look at a few other city articles and get an idea of the style. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I echo 13²'s thanks to Global.Geo.Historic.Data, who dodged a bullet but forced protection status on the article, for finally deciding to communicate and perhaps collaborate. I am still quite willing to help improve the article. Unfortunately, my online time is sharply limited this week due to circumstances beyond my control. There's no great urgency here, and I sincerely hope that any further edits in my absence won't be of the edit-warring kind. Brief thoughts on proposed text: way too detailed for this article, some of it appropriate for History of Bismarck, North Dakota if properly sourced and grammar cleaned up and if no copyright violations. (NB: the Bismarck Tourism Center should not be counting on Wikipedia for cooperation of any kind, nor should you allow yourself to be relied upon by them for such purposes.) Rivertorch (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Immediate things at a glance: "Wikipedia" isn't acceptable as a source. The detailed weather data is recentist and cruft. And just looking at the beginning, I can see plenty that needs citation and tightening:

At a place formerly regarded ^[who?] as nothing more than the Missouri Crossing ... Bismarck was rumored ^[who?] back then for being an outlaw town ... Bismarck also was a place where the beauty of North Dakota is said ^[who?] to begin and a said to be ^[who?] a place of peace and growing success.

And:

renamed it “Bismarck”, after the German chancellor Otto von Bismarck, in an attempt to lure German immigrants to settle along its route.

No, multiple book sources say it was actually an attempt to solicit German financial investment in the railroad, if not from Bismarck himself. And so on.

There are plenty of good online sources. Check out: p112 onward of North Dakota: a guide to the Northern prairie state; Bismarck, North Dakota, p159, Encyclopedia of the Great Plains; and so on. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a draft that will need to be adjusted but I thought that the history section wasn't at all a summary and a summary is not wanted, what is needed is a documented list of events and history, yes the list will be long but it must flow together like an encyclopdia. The current page starts with quick facts that can be found with a globe or road map. Than a history section tells of a place that was founded by a railroad company and first named Edwinton, than Bismarck. (I would like it to mention how remarkably close Mandan Earth Lodge ruins are to Bismarck, these prove Native Americans first lived in present day Bismarck and how the site where Bismarck is, was somehow chosen to be the capital of the Dakota Territory. I wish it would mention the hardships of founding and keeping the city alive, and the burning of the capital building, how the 1st burned to the ground, and how hard it was to build such a building in the 1930's. I wish it would describe Bismarck today but then again that should be in the culture section.) As you scroll down you see ugly pictures that are sparingly used and a wreck that is supposed to be describing the climate of Bismarck. But instead it describes a grassland's climate.

It continues on with useless and non-reliable information. I would like to see a usefull and a completed history section that is not just half a paragraph long. It should be as long as other city's history descriptions. The culture page is very non-reliable. It lists some preformance theaters, thats like listing the colleseum as the culture of Rome. Culture is supposed to describe the people, not buildings. Now when you compare my vision of the profile on Bismarck, it sounds far more encyclopedic, which is what you want, not what you have with the current mess of what you have now. You act as though Bismarck is some mythical creature that is very hard to describe but it is not this should be easy! --96.3.137.168 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wish it would mention the hardships of founding and keeping the city alive, and the burning of the capital building, how the 1st burned to the ground, and how hard it was to build such a building in the 1930's. I wish it would describe Bismarck today but then again that should be in the culture section.) As you scroll down you see ugly pictures that are sparingly used and a wreck that is supposed to be describing the climate of Bismarck

This is what would be called "unencyclopedic" here. We don't want emotive descriptions of places. We want neutral ones - see WP:NPOV - as if written by someone who neither likes nor dislikes the place. Imagine Bismarck as a city in Siberia you have no interest in. You have no opinion about its culture or its climate, or how hard anyone might have worked to build it, or the ugliness/prettiness of pictures of it. Write about it from that viewpoint.

I'm sorry, but I'm on the cusp of choosing whether to negotiate with you, or treat you as a disruptive editor. You either accept Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or not. If not, you're disruptive and we just proceed and get you blocked and write the article without you. Decide. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We again ignore the fact that the profile is already "unencyclopedic" if we were to stop being ignorant we would see that the page is far too neutral. Comparing the culture of 104,944 people to a group of buildings is very encyclopedic is what we are saying. Let us please use common sense in this situation. Comparing the climate of a distinct city to the climate of some northern grassland is also so very encyclopedic (sarcasm). Define to us again how this article is at all encyclopedic and not an article in a phonebook. If there was a city in Siberia, that no one cared about which is impossible as I will let us know, the Wikipedia page would be much like Bismarck's current stage. An Encyclopedia’s article would be flowing and easy to read. This "encyclopedia" seems to outline some unimportant facts that are deemed reliable. Then an adjustment is made and someone (I think who wrote the article) defends it with a useless excuse of guidelines and rules. I will say that Wikipedia is edited by the people. Go onto another site if you want to control it all. Your idea is very different from the real world. I find this fact hilarious that that was our excuse for locking the profile. Can we please stop fighting over keeping this trash the way it is and change it into an easy to read, flowing, sleek, and informal profile. Please consider, Wikipedia is written by the people, not by one person. Please realize that this site is founded by us all, not just you. You are blaming this on me because I have disrupted the peace. I thought you would help me make this page better, not degrade me. Please read my revision of the history section as so that you may help us make the profile better for my cause. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.137.168 (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. About you mocking my say in the discussion as unencyclopedic, this was not going to go in this encyclopedia, it was meant to improve it, thanks for turning it into something to single me out as the person who is the reason behind the article's failure, not as me trying to improve it. You do not own wikipedia, this is the discussion page, my words should not be deemed unencyclopedic since this is not the part of the encyclopedia everyone reads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.137.168 (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming any ownership of the article. I agree with you that the article needs improving. All I'm saying is that Wikipedia has a "house style", and many aspects of that are non-negotiable. For instance, you say " the page is far too neutral". It has to be: neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. If you want the article to be outside that envelope, it's not going to happen.

By the way, "unencyclopedic" is not meant as an insult: it's just shorthand for "outside the style usual for an encyclopedia" - and encyclopedias don't contain lyrical and emotive passages like Spring is a time where the people of Bismarck enjoy the return of plant and animal life. Summer is full of parades and sporting events and the river is alive with the people of Bismarck. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reviewing the proposed text more closely, I agree with all you say. It's not beyond fixing, but the problems are so numerous and of various kinds that it would require a great deal of time and close collaboration. Time is one thing I don't have right now, and collaboration is a process that IP editor Global.Geo.Historic.Data aka 96.3.137.168—who despite my polite request and explanation is still not signing his posts—seems unwilling or unable to engage in. All I'm seeing is a recurrent litany of complaints about the article, accompanied by statements that make utterly clear that the objectives of Global.Geo.Historic.Data are incompatible with the objectives of the Wikipedia community. In 31⁄2 years here as a registered editor, I have never before spent so much time and effort assuming good faith in trying to explain Wikipedia policy and how it relates to a given article, only to be ignored or rebuffed. Before that, I was an IP editor. My recollection of that time was that Wikipedia was a confusing place with many rules I didn't understand at first, so I trod carefully, studied the rules, paid close attention and learned from what experienced editors had to say. This isn't any credit to me; it's what we should expect from every new editor. Anything less is disruptive to the encyclopedia (and, imo, plain old-fashioned bad manners, fwiw).

At any rate, I'm done beating my head against the wall. Due to off-wiki responsibilities, my time here is extremely limited this week, and in the time it took me to write these two paragraphs I could have productively edited a dozen articles. To Global: for the record, despite what you implied earlier in this thread, I did not write the article. (If you were familiar with how Wikipedia works, you could easily check who wrote what.) I have copyedited it extensively and removed lots of vandalism—that's all. Both consensus and an abundance of specific policies and guidelines stand between you and what you want to impose on the article. My final friendly suggestion to you: please just drop it. Further disruption or tendentious editing will go to WP:ANI. Rivertorch (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever keep it the way it is before if you think the work is perfect. I don't care anymore. I asked you to help me improve it but I am constantly told that the article was disrupted. I view it as trash. It seems to be troubling the tourism industry of Bismarck. But I simply can not continue fighting over something that is a hilarious mess. I tried to improve this but it seems people like it the old way. Many find it hard to read as I read the discussion page. The sarcasm section really degrades it giving me further stress that you appear to ignore everyone. I am tired of working hours to try to get the history section to the extent needed. You want a nazi appearing profile is what I hear. I want an easy to read one that is full of information. Farewell and I want to announce the failure of wikipedia as it fails to describe a small city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.137.168 (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your writing, however, you really needed to do some more reading because your text is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I will just leave that as my opinion because there is no reason to repeat the explanations with links to further information that have already been given above. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bismarck, North Dakota. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bismarck, North Dakota. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161019182931/https://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015-3.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015-3.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bismarck.org/index.aspx?NID=642
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/geo/www/gazetteer/files/Gaz_places_national.txt
Added archive https://archive.is/20160602200744/http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/SUB-EST2015.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706010729/http://bismantransit.com/_wsn/page2.html to http://bismantransit.com/_wsn/page2.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bismarck, North Dakota. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927214738/http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=bios_schafer.xml to http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=bios_schafer.xml

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota Golf Association listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect North Dakota Golf Association. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Toddst1 (talk) 02:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Government

Bismark,_ND#Government contains "The current mayor of Bismarck is Mike Schmitz.[42]", but it incorrectly links to Mike_Schmitz , which is a different person with the same name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.73.91.89 (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]