Talk:Cradle of Liberty Council/Archive 1

message: :The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it. 
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.  
*Treasure Island - Should stand alone. --evrik 16:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asked for an independent opinion on these articles. I am not a scout, and have only lived in PA for a few years, but in reading through these articles, I would endorse the comments to keep them independent and not merge them. They are OK as stand alone articles, and for a reader who is not familiar with these organizations, the separate articles are fine. Scott Mingus 01:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy exists (as you acknowledge above), and has for over half a year. That you disagree does not give you the right to revert merges. I have established policy behind me on this, and the Scouting project facilitator has acknowledged that camps are sub-council entities and so fall under the policy. Chris 00:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Way more than three people voted for it back in February. You win some, you lose some. Chris 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment.  This is a cross-project discussion.  Recall, WP:CCC.  This violates that, which says consensus can change.  It formerly was called No Binding Decisions.   If two WikiProjects have dissenting conventions, perhaps it should come up for some kind of vote?  Personally, I am opposed to merging these articles, as they both have substance to them.  --myselfalso 01:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose merger as per myselfalso above. Squamate 02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it. 
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.  
*disagree to TI merge-Of sub-national camps, thus far only Treasure Island meets the standard above, (as it is the home of the Order of the Arrow) while Resica does not. Chris 17:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Camp articles, and why they should stay separate

message: I have added merge tags to the two council camp articles, as per the Rules and Standards of the Scouting WikiProject. -- CampMinsi 06:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was asked for an independent opinion on these articles. I am not a scout, and have only lived in PA for a few years, but in reading through these articles, I would endorse the comments to keep them independent and not merge them. They are OK as stand alone articles, and for a reader who is not familiar with these organizations, the separate articles are fine. Scott Mingus 01:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge tags

message: *agree to Resica merge-as per the standard which was set and agreed upon early in 2006. The only reasonable exceptions to established policy would be if a camp had a significance beyond the local region-i.e. a camp where a National or World Jamboree was held, or a longstanding national program available to the bulk of Scouts was created there, or similarly significant outside of its vicinity. So the first Scout camp on Mars, or the camp where President Schwarzenegger reaches peace between North and South Koreas, would be good candidates for stand alone articles. Chris 17:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The policy exists (as you acknowledge above), and has for over half a year. That you disagree does not give you the right to revert merges. I have established policy behind me on this, and the Scouting project facilitator has acknowledged that camps are sub-council entities and so fall under the policy. Chris 00:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Way more than three people voted for it back in February. You win some, you lose some. Chris 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment.  This is a cross-project discussion.  Recall, WP:CCC.  This violates that, which says consensus can change.  It formerly was called No Binding Decisions.   If two WikiProjects have dissenting conventions, perhaps it should come up for some kind of vote?  Personally, I am opposed to merging these articles, as they both have substance to them.  --myselfalso 01:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose merger as per myselfalso above. Squamate 02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Resica Falls Scout Reservation|Resica Falls Scout Reservation merge]]

message: :The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it. 
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.  
*disagree to TI merge-Of sub-national camps, thus far only Treasure Island meets the standard above, (as it is the home of the Order of the Arrow) while Resica does not. Chris 17:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Treasure Island (Scout reservation)|Treasure Island (Scout reservation) merge]]

message: :The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it. 
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.  
Wikipedia content policy
# Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
# Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
# The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research.
For further information, visit Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No Original Research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Thank you for helping make Wikipedia the most reliable encyclopedia on earth!
Please help bring this article into compliance. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 08:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia policies on content acceptability

message: It appears that all of the Philly.com references have 404ed.  --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: I just removed this category added by Jagz. I think its addition is pushing POV. The council is not an issue. --evrik (talk) 14:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cats

message: Because National does not recognize lodge numbers, is it still appropriate for us to use them here? --EightBall1989 22:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just double checked the re-charter form. I guess when national stopped using the lodge numbers to refer to lodges for events, I assumed that meant they were no longer recognized at all. --EightBall1989 23:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unami Lodge One usage 

message: *http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=137754
*http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51251
*http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=39982&p=1
*http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=158756&p=1
Some related links. --evrik (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some related links

message: This is getting silly guys. I removed the following passage:
Because of the council's decision to follow national policy, the city wanted the council to vacate the office at 23rd and Winter Streets (next to the Franklin Institute science museum); this decision drew fire from Scouting officials and city residents who saw Scouting as an alternative to the "mean streets" of the depressed areas of the city.  Afterward, the city reversed its decision because it threatened to become a campaign issue in the tough re-election fight Street faced against Republican Sam Katz in the upcoming mayoral election.
thumb|right|Roger S. Firestone Scout Resource Center
In July 2006, Mayor Street (having won re-election) once again told the council to either change its policy and allow homosexuals to be members, pay fair market rent or leave the city-owned Marks Scout Resource Center. The city said that providing the city-owned property rent-free to the council violates Philadelphia's anti-discrimination laws. The BSA planned to fight to the city's decision. 
In its place, I put neutral langauge that is sourcable with the sources already on the page.  Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.211.226 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 25 November 2007
*Fine by me. --evrik (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise

message: :cite 10   
There is no verifiable info about the Scouts paying to build the building in that citation, or any other I can find. I currently (Dec 4, 2007) have the History and Social Sciences reference library of the Philadelphia Free Library checking the Quaker Scouting Yearbooks for 1927-1930 in their closed stacks for information on the origins of the building itself and the funding of its construction. Hopefully I'll have a good sourcing either way soon. Wickedthought 19:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New debate