Talk:Philmont Scout Ranch

message: :
:
 
;Philmont ROCS Program
 EarthSea-Keeper (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gospel of the Redman  (1936 F1RST Edition)

message: I just noticed that  made a of major edits on June 16.
The result was that these tow images disappeared:
*:File:Clark's Fork Camp (Philmont Scout Ranch).png
*:File:Black Mountain Camp (Philmont Scout Ranch).png
I don't have the time right now, but perhaps these changes should be discussed. --evrik (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Drmies does a lot lot of deletions and tagging on Scouting articles. IMO they should start doing more additions :-) North8000 (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

text: I just realized that  merged a large amount of content at Philmont Scout Ranch camps and I just noticed. I reversed it. --evrik (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And now, we have this edit. --evrik (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: , see this and think about that statement again. What I wish is that BSA articles weren't so blatantly promotional and excessive. Y'all want to count secondary sources on that huge catalog of bivouacs and latrines at Philmont Scout Ranch camps? There's two paragraphs here, on a website run by an amateur historian, and they say nothing about what happened to the land, and there's this, which is used to source this, "owned by the Boy Scouts of America and used as a backpacking reservation". In other words, there are no secondary sources that establish any kind of notability. The whole article is basically a fancy copy of this. , you're pretty good at reverting without a decent explanation, and you've done it again: "redirected without any discussion", that's it. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, there are some issues. I'll flag them in the next newsletter and see if we can't get someone to work on this. --evrik (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Drmies IMHO you may not be adapting your thinking to a large decentralized organization.  To illustrate by the extreme, it's not a COI for a human to edit an article about humans.  The other area that seems to be at issue is that a lot of the enclyclopedic material about organizations (particularly the "boring but enclyclopedic" kind) has to come from primary sources because secondary sources tend less to cover those types of things. Next, you seem to think that describing the facilities within a facility article is promotional or covering the programs of a "programs" organization means that it is promotional.     Finally I don't know why you are talking about wp:notability which is a criteria for existence as a separate article.   Philmont Scout Ranch could easily hit a home run under both wp:GNG and N:GEO. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I forgot to ping.....would you be interested in discussion on the points in my post? North8000 (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

text: I'll weigh in real quick. I will say that I definitely have a COI in this and lean towards support of the BSA. However, looking at Drmies edits of these pages, many of them seem to be unnecessarily cutting chucks of encyclopedic articles. I don't think many of the edits are productive.  GoldMiner24 Talk 22:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Major changes made

message: Someone has been hacking at the content. One of the sections was Philmont_Scout_Ranch#Awards. I restored the section because of the number of images. I think the section explains quite a bit about the culture and should be kept. Perhaps it should be rewritten? What do people think? Let's discuss this and come to a consensus before we take any further action. --evrik (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , please carefully read WP:ONUS. There are plenty of articles out there full of inappropriate contents that have not been tended to in years and the duration the garden has not been tended isn't a consensus. Two users (at least), myself and  have removed the contents with good reasons but you continue to restore it. Adding intricate contents of interest to a small proportion of audience is WP:UNDUE and does not maintain a neutral point of view as it gives way too much mic to BSA's voice and Wikipedia is not a program guide. Graywalls (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Will this ever end? "I restored the section because of the number of images" is the worst reason one can give in a discussion about encyclopedic content, even worse than "From a content standpoint, restore long standing encyclopedic material", which is the reason given by , whom I just reverted. Drmies (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Oh, User:evrik, "someone"? Don't be afraid to name names. I'm still waiting on your COI declaration. , we should start tagging these articles on the talk pages. Drmies (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards section