Talk:Mohonk Preserve

message: The page Mohonk Mountain House was created on March 9, 2005, and is now it pretty good shape, IMHO.  When I worked on it, I was unaware that the Mohonk Preserve link redirected here.  I can see no useful purpose for combining the two, so I am proposing that this article be renamed simply Mohonk Preserve.  I will continue to work on expanding it.  Mwanner 23:35, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
:This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 23:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Every locale has an interest (historical, cultural, or economic) in describing itself as interesting.
Nevertheless, Mohonk Mountain's highest point, the top of the tower at Sky Top, is geographically interesting:  you can see six states from up there on a clear day, goes the claim.  Is it true?  Can anyone verify?
The six are NY (you're in it), CT (closest to E.), MA (CT's not that big), NJ (far side of NYC?  Dubious), PA (closer than parts of NJ), and whichever of Vermont or New Hampshire is on the west, I always forget.  :)
For comparison, note the claim discussed in Metropulse about "seeing seven states" - and the problem of smog, and of distances approaching and even beyond 100 miles.
If anyone can verify the Mohonk claim using NPOV sources, please say so. The NYTimes, among other sources, agrees with the claim (and it's Vermont, not New Hampshire, that is west of the other, and just north of Connecticut).  See this article.
Eh Nonymous 10:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, Vermont is just north of MA. (Directly north of CT, yes; just north, no.) --75.69.176.225 (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See Six States" 

message: Paragraph states:
The Mohonk Preserve has been involved in numerous land disputes with their neighbors. The confrontational land grab tactics of the Mohonk Preserve, which includes the use of adverse possession, has led to the formation of the Mohonk Neighbors Association.
The bolded words are not backed up by any information justifying the claims. I have searched for the "Mohonk Neighbors Association" and the only reference I find is this page. 
I am deleting the referenced paragraph. If someone has facts that back this up, I would appreciate input.
--BrianJ48 (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The above link does not constitute a reliable source as this is merely an append to an open forum.  In addition, the open letter referenced never mentions a formal group called Mohonk Preserve Neighbors Association.  Prairienut (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

text: There's more criteria for inclusion in Wiki than just being well cited:  for example, worthiness, balance, and neutrality.  A reader who knew nothing about the Preserve would learn a lot about the current litigation but nothing about it being a destination for rock climbers from all over the world and providing long-term continuous climate and phenological data to climate scientists.  Plus the text on litigation was biased (intentional or not) in that it linked to a news article about a case that the Preserve lost but did not link to an article where the Preserve won. Prairienut (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Mohonk Preserve has prevailed in both of the recent boundary dispute court cases.  So the courts have indeed decided ownership, and appeals have been exhausted. These decisions confirm the wisdom of omitting details of pending litigation in a Wiki article.  Rather than reading all about it here, interested parties can obtain the court transcripts from the Ulster County clerk's office.Prairienut (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

text: "Attempted land theft" is an opinion, not a fact.  Saying that all the litigation is baseless is an opinion, not a fact.  Saying it is a "way of life" for the preserve is an opinion, too.  The Ullrich case was just upheld on appeal in the Preserve's favor (decision is available online).  If there was aggression in this case, it wasn't from the Preserve.  The Fink case is more complicated and arguable, and is still under appellate review.  But regardless of these outcomes, I consider a section on active litigation as inappropriate for an encyclopedic level of detail.  I have read the cases myself and they are fairly ordinary boundary disputes with old, complicated, and/or flawed deeds.  I see no evidence of frivolous lawsuits or bullying.  They are disputes that any landowner would take up to defend what they in good faith believe to be their boundaries.  Rather tedious to anyone other than the litigants.  Wiki isn't the place to promote conspiracy theories. Prairienut (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

text: The whole article is a complete mess. And that includes the POV lawsuit section. And also the useless immense lists of directors, etc. Feel free to edit and also to add to the article with more appropriate material. Provide citations if you can and know how. Remember to sign your Talk page posts by using four tildes. Softlavender (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tips.  Just watched the tutorial on citations so will try to follow the guidelines on any new material. 76.15.8.165 (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

text: I used material from a recent Poughkeepsie Journal article to improve the Intro, History, and Description sections.  There have been no comments here for several weeks justifying why the Boundary Disputes section should remain so I have removed it.  Even though there were citations, the detailed descriptions of a couple of lawsuits is not at all in keeping with the level of detail in the rest of the article.  Mohonk Preserve recently prevailed in one of these lawsuits so a clear pattern of "questionable land acquisition tactics" cannot be presented as indisputable fact anyway.  It is an opinion by certain disgruntled landowners and their friends.  These arguable points do not belong in Wiki. Prairienut (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Land Grab" ? 

message: The fictitious Lenape translation of Mohonk as "lake in the sky" went unchallenged since the creation of this page. As soon as the origin of the name was challenged with supported documentation, GoGunks suddenly decides that the origin is "irrelevant to the Preserve" and erases the correction. The Mohonk Preserve employs a full-time historian and considers documenting the cultural history of the ridge, including the native history, part of its mission. The Mohonk Mountain House employs a full-time archivist and briefs its staff daily on the history of the hotel. 
So, why wouldn't clarifying the origin of Mohonk be relevant to this page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlgH2O (talk • contribs) 02:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I condensed the derivation of the name Mohonk down to a couple sentences to be more in balance with the rest of the history section. Prairienut (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the name Mohonk  

message: ,  - I've seen the edit war between the pair of you and my preference is for Softlavender's version. "2 hours" is not encyclopedic language (is that "2 hours" in a car, an RV, a 44 tonner or something else?) and not everyone (particularly those who don't live in the US) know that "NY" means "New York State". Please can you justify your changes? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ritchie, you've missed the fact that the IP is vandalizing by removing text lower down on the article, in addition to IP-hopping between three different IPs. Look again. These are the same set of IP ranges that repeatedly vandalize Mohonk Mountain House and cause that article to have to be repeatedly semi-protected. Softlavender (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it. I've asked for this article to be semi'd - that should sort things out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I had already done that long before. In my opinion it really should be semi'ed for six months, like Mohonk Mountain House. In a week they'll probably be back doing the same thing. Softlavender (talk) 21:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody is clearly unhappy with our representation of the Mohonk Preserve and the Mountain House, I'm just not sure exactly what or why. Oh well, some more eyes are looking at this now so it should be less of a long term issue. I general, I find a brief note on the talk page as to the background of previous disputes helps, otherwise a third party looking at this just sees "revert", "revert", "revert" and has to work out the context from scratch. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's trolling pure and simple. We've tried to interact with the IP hopper(s) and they never respond, they just keep accelerating the trolling. That's why the longterm semi-protection is necessary. Softlavender (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it 90 miles or 2 hours? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Mohonk Preserve. 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/20141208222738/http://www.marbletown.net/2014/07/31/healthy-ulster-autumn-at-mohonk-preserve-free-one-month-membership/ to http://www.marbletown.net/2014/07/31/healthy-ulster-autumn-at-mohonk-preserve-free-one-month-membership/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why does this article include a photo caption that mentions "The Trapps," yet nowhere in the text of the current version of this article is the term "Trapps" mentioned or explained? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Trapps"