Talk:Alpental

Slow Edit War
There is a slow edit war occurring in this article. I pose some questions here in the hope people can discus their different views. -- Patleahy 06:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the ownership of the ski concession notable? Please see Notability for the relevant guideline.
 * Should information of the ownership of the ski area concession be moved to The Summit at Snoqualmie article where the rest of the information on the ski area is?
 * Should the article be merged with the Snoqualmie Pass (Washington) and The Summit at Snoqualmie articles? Information here is almost all about recreation in the valley which is not different from the Snoqualmie Pass, or is information about the ski area.
 * Is there any reliable verifiable source which describes an opposition to development at the ski area? Please see Reliable sources and Verifiability.

Summary as to why this edit war, or what appears to be as such. There is a single person who runs a website who has a personal beef with the owners of Alpental. He takes all edits of his entries as personal attacks, but as we all can see his entries generally go against Wiki neutral stance policy. He also tries to use the Wiki article to promote his website and his cause. There are 3 major areas that he will continue to keep focusing on which are:


 * 1. Lot 3 and 4. He has a HUGE problem with the fact that Booth Creek regulates their parking lots and he feels they should be free for the public to use at all times.  Posting usage of these lots is of no point on the Wiki site IMO.
 * 2. George Gillett. He feels the need to keep posting his name as the owner even though he is NOT the owner, only one the partners of the CNL group which now owns The Summit at Snoqualmie.  If you check the history of George Gillett Jr you will see how he likes to add Booth Creek expansion plans and links to his website. I'm really not sure why he feels it relevant to keep posting him as the owner when he is not.  He is 1/4 owner and Chairman of Booth Creek.
 * 3. Booth Creek. They are evil because they run Alpental, are trying to develop the area and he feels they need to be stopped. (thus his freealpental website)

As far as opposition, its just this one guy. There is no more opposition to Alpental then there is to any other ski area in Washington. This is a personal issue between one guy and the Alpental ski area.

For the merge question, I believe all ski area info should be merged with The Summit At Snoqualmie and then maybe start an article called Alpental Valley for the community and surrounding valley, but that is just my thoughts.

My personal expertise is in WA ski history, and Snoqualmie Pass history so I have been trying to add where I can, and help out when possible. (I've had others edit me where I've made mistakes along the way as well and I don't take it personal). The rules here are clear, keep articles neutral and no self promotion, but since he does not agree with the rules he feels he can continue to push his agenda as he sees fit. FWIW, this is pretty much what all the editing is about, just check the history and you will see the pattern. I have no personal agenda and could care less what he wants to push on his own website, but it doesn't belong here.

--Mrhyak 08:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I invited User:71.111.172.113 to join this discussion on their talk page. -- Patleahy 22:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

George Gillett
A recent edit summary asks why George Gillett is deleted from the article. I'm not doing it, but I think I understand why. The answer is basically that who owns it isn't especially noteworthy. Ski areas on USFS land own a special use permit and the structures, etc. In turn, someone owns the ski area. That's normal, and isn't noteworthy unless there was something unusual about the way that is arranged. If George painted the hillsides pink, that would be noteworthy. But he just owns it—and by the looks of other comments—owns a minority share at that. —EncMstr 21:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

INCLUSION V EXCLUSION of NOTABLE, VERIFIABLE FACTS
Deleter(s?) are promoting an Exclusionary Theory Of Wikipedia without apparently being informed of the alternative Inclusionary Theory Of Wikipedia.

George Gillett owns Booth Creek in its entirety. The citations for that FACT keeps being deleted by "one guy" that doesn't like another "one guy" that keeps including that fact. Furthermore, Gillett's ownership of Booth Creek means that he is entirely responsible for how the lease that was a condition of the sale to CNL is implemented.

Whoever each of the "one guys" are (I'm not either of them) they BOTH obviously have a Point Of View.

After researching the "edit war" the conclusion is that at heart is the question of land use, specifically PUBLIC land use of the adjacent areas. That means the 300 million Americans who have a vested interest in the area have a NOTABLE and legitimate claim to understand WHO is running the areas adjacent to their public lands and HOW such development of both the land adjacent to their public land is implemented as well as how the owners and operators intend to develop and use the adjacent PUBLIC lands.

The deleter has the Point Of View that NOTABLE, VERIFIABLE FACTS should be deleted and is "gaming the system" by repeatedly deleting the Notable, Verifiable FACTS by saying they don't meet the Wikipedia "standard" of "notable" or "verifiable." These conclusions are both false and misleading as well as contrary to the Wikipedia "standard" of INCLUSION.

The inclusionists Point Of View is that PUBLIC lands need protection from PRIVATE interests. Where the inclusionists Point Of View has muddied some of the included FACTS with a Point Of View that Private ownership of lands benefitting from Public lands needs to be monitored, the deleter (the "exclusionist") has responded by deleting both the FACTS along with the Point Of View.

In other words the deleter(s?) (the exclusionist) has the Point Of View that Notable, Verifiable Facts should be deleted. Why? Tough to say, but it's not because the FACTS aren't "notable" or "verifiable," they are.

Instead, the deleter(s) have gone out of their way to push an EXCLUSIONIST THEORY OF WIKIPEDIA as some sort of Wikipedia Law without recognizing the debate within the Wikipedia community on the alternative INCLUSIONIST THEORY OF WIKIPEDIA that is arguably a central part of what Wikipedia has been based on: ADD DON'T DELETE.

Gillett's NOT a private figure, concealing his vested interests would be different if he were a private figure, but Gillett regularly seeks out PUBLIC attention as evidenced by an easy Google that shows he's repeatedly given interviews to Magazines, Newspapers, as well as in online publications. Moreover, Gillett's control of significant private lands abutting PUBLIC lands and the intention of his wholly owned company Booth Creek to DEVELOP those public lands is NOTABLE to the 300 million Americans who have a vested interest in their PUBLIC lands.

How might the deleters benefit from their deletions? Ideally they're improving Wikipedia by deleting falsehoods but they aren't doing that, they're deleting FACTS. Ideally they're removing Non-Notable information but they aren't it's extremely NOTABLE information for this article. Ideally they're removing Non-Verifiable information. But all the FACTS are Verifiable and citations CLEARLY showing that have been removed by the deleters.

So what's left? The deleter(s) may simply have the Point Of View that Exclusion of notable, verifiable facts is more important to their Point Of View of what the article should have included in it. Or maybe they have some vested personal interest in those deletions. Perhaps they just don't like the "one guy" who is monitoring the use of PUBLIC lands owned by 300 million Americans.

As to the "one guys" link to his own site, it appears that site includes substantial facts regarding the development of the region that are both RELIABLE and VERIFIABLE. Apparently whoever deleted the link either didn't look at the website's FACTUAL, RELIABLE, AND VERIFIABLE resources. Why isn't a link to FACTUAL, RELIABLE, AND VERIFIABLE sources relevant? Apparently because the deleter doesn't like the fact that the "one guy" may have a point of view contrary to the point of view intentions of the owners to develop PUBLIC land.

To the deleters: please stop deleting FACTUAL, NOTABLE, VERIFIABLE information.

To the includers: please try to maintain a NON POINT OF VIEW and only include FACTUAL information that is VERIFIABLE (use citations, use as many citations as are needed to counter the deleters claim of Non-Verifiability), and try to provide the Wikipedia community an understanding of WHY your inclusion is NOTABLE. Convincing the deleters that your inclusion is NOTABLE will likely mean even MORE citations.

Ultimately it's hoped that Factual, Verifiable, Notable information will eventually prevail over the exclusionist deleters attempts to conceal notable, verifiable facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.111.146.203 (talk • contribs).

-George Gillett does not own Booth Creek. He does not own CNL. If you can verify any of this, please show where he does own these companies? CNL is a publicly traded company, so stockholders own it. IMO the addition of his name as owner is not only incorrect, but irrelevant. Mrhyak 03:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. 71.111.146.203, Did you know that capital letters are the equivalent of shouting? That aside,
 * 1) Thank you for a thoughtful response.
 * 2) It looks like more than one editor is deleting the Gillet information.
 * 3) You argument that George N. Gillett Jr. is notable to this article isn't persuasive.  Perhaps it is relevant to the as-yet-unwritten Booth Creek Resorts article, or the Gillett article.
 * 4) The freealpental.org website has just two weblinks to it, blatant spelling errors, an anonymous description of "who we are," and a nonfunctional "contact the website operator".  These together seem to make it of limited reliability.  The owner of the site is not supposed to add wikipedia links to it.
 * 5) Instead of presuming George to be evil and insisting on his mention in this article as the prime destructive force, why not describe—and cite—the destructive actions themselves.  I expect most editors would agree that the Alpental section could withstand and welcome a well written, informative controversy subsection.

Surely you'll agree that any inclusionary theory of wikipedia' has its limits. Otherwise we'd have articles like 1982 New York City yellow pages contents. —EncMstr 09:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

new photo
I have a decent photo that I took from the top of chair 2 this past Friday (a really clear day) that shows a great view of the valley. Would anyone be opposed to me adding it to the article? Do you think it is relevant to add it here? Let me know, thanks. The hardcore icon the sandman 06:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please add it! Feel free to ask on my talk page if you would like any help.  —EncMstr 16:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool, it's added. Thanks for the help! The hardcore icon the sandman 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * An excellent addition! I take it that's a camera phone photo?  If not, it's preferred you upload the highest resolution you have.   WikiMedia has lots of disk space!  —EncMstr 19:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice photo! How about a description on the photo page along with the photo such as direction (east view), altitude of the chair (aprox. 5,400'), Lake Keechelus in the distance as well as I-90, etc....just a thought. I was snowboarding over at Central that same day and it was a sunburn day for sure.Mrhyak 18:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Move/rename
This should be Alpental Ski Area or Alpental Ski Resort. Alpental is too general a word and although other Wiki articles using it don't apparently exist yet, the naming convention on resorts are pretty clear; call it a resort. I realize that this article presumes to be for the valley simultaneously but that's a debatable choice indicating two different topics/topic categories.Skookum1 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)