Talk:Bear Mountain (resort)

NPOV issues with current version WP:NPOV

The current version of this article has some severe NPOV issues (Skookum1 and others please review WP:NPOV). This article will be edited to address outstanding WP:NPOV Issues with the current version. Mazdarules (talk) 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

problem with image

The photo is not really an accurate depiction of Bear Mountain. It is not a tree-covered wilderness, it is a subdivision and golf course. The flattering photo and text in the article leads me to believe this article is promotional. BeavisSanchez 21:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and checked on the existence of a VBear Mountain in the provincial gazette (BC Basemap) and there are only towo Bear Mountains in BC, one in the flatter part of the BC Rocky Mtn Foothills near Alberta in the Peace River Coun try, and the other at the south end of Harrison Lake, on the east sideof Harrison Hot Springs. And it's a lot bigger than that, though the weather looks right. There is no BEar Mountain in the area of Langford or Highlands, so this cannot be a picture of it. Finding a public-domain image of hte resort may be harder. I removed it because it cannot be what it says it is, a mountain - doesn't look like a hotel or clubhouse does it? I also trimmed a lot of buzzwords and dress-up phrases from what's left, and took a mower to the promotional material on individaul buildings and restaurants (What, no 7-11? Wheres' the Tim's?) and the details on jack Nicklaus being known as the Golden BEar and loving sushi, and so the restaurant name. Puh-leeze. Unles it can be written/explained without sounding the weay it di, that kind of stuff is trivia, which is not Wikipedia is about. Not pitch-material trivia, surely. And a quote from jack Nicklaus pitching the design of a course he deisgned; even if it weren't by him, Wikipedia articles on golf courses are not meant to be reviews, or promotional. I'm tired so didn't continue on with the lanwmoer; perhaps someone else might care to continue....- Skookum1 (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This bear mountain was previously known as skirt mountain. Perhaps that would help in finding a usable image? The indigenous name for the mountain/area was SPAET, which means bear. DigitalC (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a resort article, not a mountain article; t he illustration shoudl be of the resort, not its scenery; it was the brochure quality of the picture that drew attention to it.Skookum1 (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If there's an indigenous history to the mountain, that might qualify Skirt Mountain for an article; if that's its gazetted name, that is; WSANEC toponymy is interesting in its own right, but again this is a resort article ,not a mountain article, although if that's where the company got the name-idea from - and the WSANEC source of the name can be cited - it can be mentioned.Skookum1 (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point that this is a resort article, and not a mountain article. Although, even that is a mis-nomer I think. The bear mountain development consists of more than just the resort, and the controversy is over more than just the resort.DigitalC (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Resort Mgmt and consultants please note WP:COI

This article mercifully avoids fully sounding like a promo for the resort. Owners, managers and other employees, including p.r. firms working for the resort, are asked to abide by WP:COI and, as applicable WP:AUTO - protestors should also read both.Skookum1 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this article has gone from being balanced into a rant against the development by protestors. Don't get me wrong - I don't like Bear Mountain and the effect it will have on Greater Victoria's traffic and environment but surely this can be more balanced? I'm concerned that in the haste to purge these articles of anything that MIGHT say something good about a place and be miscontrued as "promotional" - you've now created a very one sided article that only opposes. By all means, keep in the controversies but also keep in the stuff about the restaurants and Len Barrie as it increases the richness of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.122.197 (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand. I don't have a stake in the debate, I'm only applying wiki rules, and there was a tone to much content here that was clearly advertorial in nature; I'm only applying WP:MOS and WP:What Wikipedia is Not and other standard wiki guidelines; true, I didn't go after the controversy section but that was just a matter of time and research; the material there is not so clearly POV and it's clearly not commercial in orientation. Other articles written or fussed with by corporate p.r. people display the same traits and tone; James Island (British Columbia) was most rank of all, and Ten Mile Point, British Columbia is really only a part of Cadboro Bay, British Columbia, and where other Victoria neighbourhoods don't have articles these have all kinds of details that were meant only to sell houses. That's advertising, and it's un-wiki in the extreme. Political POV controversies are more delicate to deal with, and one of the reasons this resort is notable at all is because of the controversy. That's notable; how many rooms and what the par is and how the view is and where you can send the kids to school is all part of the p.r. package, and it doesn't belong; a whole paragraph on policing? Geez, we don't even have that much on policing in Vancouver.....I repeat, this has to do with advertising, the political controversy has yet to be de-POV'd. Before you complaing too much about harsh edits, be lucky the article wasn't deleted in the firs tplace (though again, it partly wasn't because of the controversy....).Skookum1 (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Skookum1 - I don't think you understand my criticism. I don't see a problem with a description in an article saying there is a 20 hole golf course or a 300 room hotel as long as it is balanced out with other (sometimes negative) facts such as the environmental protests. Your comment underlines that when you say the project is notable because of the controversy. That may be true but it may also be true that is was notable because of a heavy advertising campaign in Ontario for its golf course/hotel etc which then deserves mention in the article. This is my complaint about heavy editing like you are doing. One person's take on a topic may be entirely different than another's and you both might be correct. Your definition of real estate promotion advertising may be entirely different than mine. When I see a slick brochure and exaggeration of reality, I see advertising. When someone points out a unique feature that is true - what is wrong with that - is it the work of real estate promoters? Similarly, your idea of what comprises a neighbourhood may be entirely different than mine or someone who actually lives in the place you are trying to downplay as a distinct area. But then, what gives you the authority or the knowledge to come to conclusions as to what is a neighbourhood or what is advertising???? Are you better informed than I am or anyone else? What are your qualifications to be the "God" of Greater Victoria's Wikipedia descriptions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.232.122.197 (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The things such as the restaurants and other "amenities" aren't notable. Wikipedia isn't a tourist brochure. Controversies, that are properly sourced are notable. GreenJoe 17:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that 207.232.122.197 was also responsibile for similar realty-promotino content at Ten Mile Point, British Columbia and made similar complaints about my imposition of Wiki guideilines there; I referred in a reply to another IP address user on that talkpage to WP:RS and WP:What Wikipedia is not and WP:Notability and so on. There's no mistaking the promotional tone of what was deleted here; if it hadn't beenwritten in such am anner its citable and notable componenets could have been left as-is. It's also worth noting taht this same IP user created/cojmplained at other upper-crust area articles around Victoria; to me this is a sign of an active effort by a p.r. agency or realty firm. LOTS of other Victoria-area neighbourhoods desrve articles, and this isn't a neighbourhood article but a resort one, and as resorts geenerate controversy that's part of their notability. Another clue that this was a "brochure" was the use of a photo of teh supposed "Bear Mountain" (which does not exist as a placneame) overlooking the golf course; not an actual picture of the resort. If other articles had been created by this user which weren't all only upper-calss areas and didn't sound like realty promotions, I'd be less suspicious of their motives.Skookum1 (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should be on afd? GreenJoe 18:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's still notable and other BC resoprts hav articles; I'll try and take a lawnmower to the controversy section, unless you'd care to. Also please see Talk:Great Wolf Resorts.Skookum1 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Example article

For the IP users, Lake_Louise_Mountain_Resort is an example of a resort article writen pten and formatted properly; ther's no tcontroversy on that one, I'll see what else I can find.Skookum1 (talk) 19:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

There was a 'B' rating on this article according to the WP Golf banner, but there's no way this is a B-class article as of today......not even 'C', IMO. There are specific criteria for B-class that the article should be measured against, and the assessment documented. PKT(alk) 14:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no way this is a B class article. Themfromspace (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Controversy section

This has become a place for folks to advocate for a cause which isn't on and anyway a lot of it seems obsolete now. At the same time it misses out on the foreclosure action that has been going on. --KenWalker | Talk 06:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

originally this article was spam for the resort, heavily so, with lots of peacock language and not-quite-true distortions; and there'd been an edit war of sorts between the two sides; I hadn't known how to rewrite the reportage of teh dispuate to make it less POV but it was (at the time) notable......too many BC articles are rhetorical like this, from one side or the other; tub-thumping or pub-pumping. After all, do we have articles on all the golf resorts and new fishing/island resorts in BC? Should we even do so? This place also tried to pretend the ridge overlooking it is named Bear Mountain as a mountain, but it wasn't....many pages like this belong in WikiTravel, and the controversy-but-not-really-all-that-notable stuff or "over and done with" doesn't even really belong in WikiNews...people using Wikipedia pages both as stumps, and as bulletin boards....maybe there should be sometihing like WikiNews....WikiSoapbox?Skookum1 (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

hm funny just have missed that consensus, I don't recall being part of it, nor was Ken Walker. Would you care to be more specific and elucidate that some??Skookum1 (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried to re-engage debate on this via the RfC section on the noticeboard of WP:CANTALK; no bites yet, but here's what I said

"POV tag removed because no discussion since 2008 (when it was me who placed the tag) on Bear Mountain (resort).....I would have thought it clear that since the article's content is entirely material critical of the resort, with "citation needed" tags, and more of those needed, that the anti-resort bias of the content was sufficient explanation by itself. Definitely NPOV in its current format, I'm too backed up with other stuff to bother reverting it, and I'm not pro-development myself, but this article, if it were about a living person, would be definitely beyond the pale of what's expected for fair, unbiased content in Wikipedia."

So maybe you could explain here how this article is NPOV. Have you read it, at all?Skookum1 (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bear Mountain (resort). 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/20070628024425/http://www.district.langford.bc.ca/ to http://www.district.langford.bc.ca

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 09:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)