Talk:Cradle of Liberty Council/Archive 1

Camp articles, and why they should stay separate

 * ''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)
 * Resica Falls Scout Reservation - Can be developed, nominated today for Template_talk:Did_you_know --evrik 16:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge tags
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)
 * Looking at the history here, it's very clear that CampMinsi is violating the fourth point of the Scout Law by tagging the camp articles of another council because of Kintetsubuffalo's merger of Camp Minsi. I know that Kintetsubuffalo is WP:AGF, but I believe that instead of merging camp articles, they should be expanded and defended. --evrik 00:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

Resica Falls Scout Reservation merge

 * 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)
 * Disagree I disagree with the policy (as Chris knows.
 * 1) I think that the article is substantial enough to stand on its own.
 * 2) This article was also featured on Did you know.
 * 3) As a member of WikiProject Pennsylvania and WikiProject Philadelphia I think these articles should all remain separate. --evrik 00:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Finally, the Cradle of Liberty Council article would be cluttered by this merger. --evrik 00:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * The policy is shortsighted, wrong and against the wiki spirit. If more than three people cared about it, maybe we could change it. --evrik 00:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Way more than three people voted for it back in February. You win some, you lose some. Chris 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose merger as per myselfalso above. Squamate 02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree to merge Dddstone 12:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Treasure Island (Scout reservation) merge

 * ''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)
 * Disagree' with merge. --evrik 00:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Squamate 02:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose both mergers. As a member of WikiProject Pennsylvania, I wish to point out that WikiProject Scouting does NOT have the right to subvert our primary stated goal, of raising all our articles to FA status. If you think your arbitrary and capricious rules are more important than the overall goals of WikiPedia, perhaps the discussion shouldn't be about merging these pages, but about deleting WikiProject:Scouting. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 08:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, meets even the Scouting project's guidlelines for notability as the home of the Order of the Arrow and one of the oldest Scout camps in the USA. Ruhrfisch 02:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge, meets standards Dddstone 12:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies on content acceptability

 * ''The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedia content policy

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 Verifiability, No Original Research and 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)
 * Can someone tell me why this placed on this article? --evrik 13:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, someone can. This article doesn't meet Wikipedia standards for acceptable content.
 * For instance, the first paragraph. The only citation is an article that says the city of Philadelphia is evicting the scouts because they won't stop discriminating. Nothing there to say that the council was formed in 1996, nothing there to say that CLC was formed by merging the Philadelphia and Valley Forge Councils, nothing to say that it's the largest council in Pennsylvania, and third-largest in the BSA.
 * The next three sections, consisting of history, scout camps, and order of the arrow, have no cites whatsoever to back up what is being said.
 * WIKIPEDIA IS NOT GEOCITIES. You can't just write whatever you please; if it hasn't been published by another reliable source, it has no place in Wikipedia.
 * This article needs to be trustworthy. It needs to obey Wikipedia policies. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 18:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, are you this always this polite? Anyway, at least we now know what you were speaking about ... --evrik 18:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Cats
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)

Unami Lodge One usage
Because National does not recognize lodge numbers, is it still appropriate for us to use them here? --EightBall1989 22:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Each lodge has it's own number. They always have. --evrik (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Some related links

 * 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)


 * http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/philly.html

Repeated insertion of uncited/unsupported statement

 * ''The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Evrik has repeatedly re-inserted an uncited and unsupported statement that the city "reversed" its decision due to an upcoming mayoral race. Also, the anchor nametags of "weasels", "slipperyweasels", etc are indications that he is grossly partisan in his editing.Brian Westley (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * email from Evrik claims that his cited article (http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/8161352.html) supports his claims; the word "mayor" does not appear in this opinion piece - the word "race" does not appear. The opinion piece does not refer to an upcoming mayoral race at all.  The opinion piece does not say the city reversed its decision.  The city claims the BSA did not respond to inquiries about their proposed nondiscrimination statement.  I have seen no newspaper reports that the city reversed its decision; an opinion piece written by a BSA member is not an unbiased source even if it DID make these claims.Brian Westley (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, Evrik has put back in his uncited statement, and once again I have removed it.Brian Westley (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, my changes are apparently considered "vandalism", because I keep removing uncited statements. "slippery weasels" indeed.Brian Westley (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the sentence that I keep removing: "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"

Here is the text of the entire article cited for the above sentence. Nowhere does it support the above sentence. In addition, it is an opinion piece written by a BSA member, not an unbiased source.


 * I went ahead and removed the Chilutti reference from that one point and added the fact template back on. I will find the correct source after the holiday and add it in. FWIW, you failed to mention that 1) the Perry op-ed is slanted, as are the PGN pieces (but they're still included); 2) you also kept reverting the language about "in perpetuity" though it was clearly sourced; and 3) this is your first attempt to discuss anything, and that's only after violating WP:3RR and WP:Sock. --evrik (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Op-eds are fine if included as opinion; using an opinion piece as a basis of a factual statement like "the city reversed its decision" is not. If the city council reversed its decision, that would be part of the public record, and not a matter of opinion.  The language about "in perpetuity" is not correct.  A lease "in perpetuity" simply means it doesn't need to be periodically renewed, but its use in the article suggests that the lease can never end, which isn't true - the lease has always had a 1-year notice that either the city or the BSA council could exercise to end the lease.  And you repeatedly reinserted the sentence with the bogus cite after my edits clearly pointed out that the cite didn't support the sentence at all, and your reinsertions were without comment, unlike my removals.  And why are you adding anchor tags with names like "weasels" and "slipperyweasels"?  Sounds like you're trying to make hidden editorial comments.  Your first addition of weasel wording was 15:14, 1 June 2007 here as the source shows.  You added many more on 25 October 2007.Brian Westley (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Op-eds in major publications have to be fact checked and can’t totally make up facts. Now the sentence in question is the one that has to be sourced. I haven’t had the opportunity to get to the library to find the Inquirer article that discusses that particular sentence. I think the sentence can be reworded to show that the city backed off of enforcement because of the election. We can quibble about “reversed” then. You keep saying that the language about "in perpetuity" is not correct, and yet that is sourced – several times. Here is one: The fact is the scouts built the building and then donated it back to the city with the understanding that they would have the building from that point on. --evrik (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Op-eds make up facts all the time. And unless you can quote a city councilmember stating that they "backed off enforcement" due to the election, it's someone else's speculation on the city council's motives, which again is opinion, not fact.  And from what I read, the city didn't "back off enforcement", they tried for years to get some kind of compromise that would satisfy both the city council and the BSA.  And no, it's ridiculous to assert that the BSA council would have the building from that point on, because the lease has always had a one-year notice that could be exercised to terminate the lease.  The BSA could only expect to have it as long as they were in good graces with the city, and "in perpetuity" does not mean the lease will never be terminated, it only means the lease will never lapse.  If you have a one-year lease that also says the lease can be terminated with 30 days notice, you can't point to the one-year lease language to fight an eviction if the landlord gives you 30 days notice after six months.  And you still haven't explained your "weasel" anchor tags.Brian Westley (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said before, I have to go research that one to find the newspaper article that was the source of the comment about the election. You can keep going on about "in perpetuity," but its sourced. The fact is that until the city council voted to reverse themselves, the "perpetual" lease was in effect. that's sourced as well. --evrik (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The sentence as it is phrased is NOT sourced; it says:
 * This came despite the fact that the building itself was built and paid for by the Scouts, and given to the city with the understanding that the Scouts would be allowed to remain in it "in perpetuity."


 * The cited articles state:
 * cite 20
 * Diaz said the Council vote was the last step required to end the lease under the 1928 ordinance that leased the land to the scouts "in perpetuity."
 * cite 11 does not contain the phrase "in perpetuity"
 * cite 21 is written by an extremely biased writer, Hans Zeiger, and he is no expert on lease language. He states:
 * Almost 80 years ago, the City of Philadelphia granted to the local Boy Scouts a low-cost rent on land at 22d and Winter Streets, "in perpetuity."


 * The only proper cite is 20, which does NOT say 'the Scouts would be allowed to remain in it "in perpetuity."', it properly identifies the lease as a lease "in perpetuity", which means the lease doesn't lapse every X years or whatever. The sentence has to match what the cite says, which is about the LEASE terms.


 * The council did not reverse themselves; they simply exercised the clause in the lease that allows them to terminate it by giving one year's notice.
 * And you have YET to address your "weasel" anchor tags. Why did you use such inflammatory tags?  It destroys your credibility.Brian Westley (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Compromise
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.Fact 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)

New debate

 * 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)

"The land belongs to the City of Philadelphia but has been leased since 1928 for that token sum to the scouts, who built the landmark Beaux Arts building." --evrik (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)