Talk:Old Kia Kima

Page content
Hi ! I just received your email, and I wanted to address it here on the Talk page. The email I received was: "Who are you and why do you think you have a right to edit the article for OLD KIA KIMA? I represent Old Kia Kima. I wrote the original article. I am the website administrator for Old Kia Kima."

First off, welcome to Wikipedia! And thank you for writing this article! As you know, Wikipedia is dedicated to collaborative editing, and as stated in WP:OWNERSHIP, "an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say." My edits were not intended to be adverse and were intended to improve the article. For example, the additional categories I added increase the visibility of the article, and the changes to the infobox help promote uniformity with other similar articles. We also don't need to use Redirect template for "OKKPA" since there is no other article currently that the abbreviation could refer to. Do you have issues with any specific edits I made? Let's build consensus here on the Talk page. Deflagro  Contribs/Talk 18:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Please help me out here by explaining why you are more qualified than I to edit the article and why your edits take precedence over my original article. Potscamp (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that I'm more qualified or that my edits take precedence. But you can't simply revert edits because they were made by someone not affiliated with your organization. We're all working together here, and I'm trying to help improve the article. That's just how Wikipedia works with the collaborative editing process. Again, if you have specific issues with specific edits, I'm happy to discuss them here and we can build a consensus, but it seems you reverted edits simply because it was someone else making them. That goes against Wikipedia's spirit and policies. I'm here to help out, and I'm not trying to attack you or your contribution.  Deflagro   Contribs/Talk 20:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Since we seem to be on an equal level I propose putting my original article back in place and for any specific issues you have with the original article you can provide more of an edit explanation than "Major clean up".

Potscamp (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The original Old Kia Kima article is about the current camp which did not exist until 2002. The edit by makes the article to be about the old camp Kia Kima which existed prior to 1963. Potscamp (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, do not revert edits while we're trying to build consensus on the Talk page. Your most recent edit was another manual partial reversion to the "original" article. This is bordering on WP:EDITWAR territory. I understand you're the webmaster for your organization. But your organization does not own the article, and anyone can engage in collaborative editing to the article. It seems your main objection is to the inclusion of a link to Kia Kima Scout Reservation in the lede and the "Main Article" template in the History section? Based on the Arkansas Register listing, this campground is notable because it is the former site of Kia Kima Scout Reservation. Why do you feel linking to the Kia Kima Scout Reservation article changes the scope of the article? What about the other edits you're reverting such as the city in the infobox and the formatting fixes? Please, let's work together on this.   Deflagro   Contribs/Talk 02:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The article today looks good as it is, but could use some expansion., is right about WP:OWN. --evrik (talk) 18:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I seem to be doing everything wrong. The seemingly simple concept of Wikipedia is so full of rules and regulations it takes a lawyer to understand them all. My main objection is to your lede. The article as I wrote it is about the current entity known as Old Kia Kima and should be addressed in the present tense. If you want to change the article to be about the camp that was the predecessor to KKSR then you will have to change the name of the article to reference whatever the camp was called before 1963. I feel certain the name Old Kia Kima was not used until well after KKSR moved upriver. If you want to change the article to be about the camp prior to 1963 then I will bow out and you can have it. Potscamp (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Potscamp, the article can be about both the old camp and the new camp. --evrik (talk) 19:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're definitely not doing everything wrong--you wrote a good article! I don't mean to change the scope of the article, and you definitely have more knowledge of the subject than I do (which is limited to the two articles and some cursory google searches). As an outside reader without knowing anything about it, it seemed like the history of the location is tied to Kia Kima Scout Reservation (and I agree, that article seems a better place for the in-depth history of the Boy Scout program at the location), which is why I thought it makes sense to a reader to reference that and have a link to the other article in the lede paragraph. And under History to have a Main Article template that links to the other article for readers who want to read more about the history. What would you think of something like this for a lede: "Old Kia Kima is a youth campground near Hardy, Sharp County, Arkansas, that is listed on the Arkansas Register of Historic Places for local historical significance and local architectural style. The campground was previously the site of Kia Kima Scout Reservation, a Boy Scouts of America summer camp, and many of the historic buildings have since been restored in the original architectural style." Also, is Cherokee Village, Arkansas more accurate than "near Hardy"? It's hard to tell.   Deflagro   Contribs/Talk 20:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

First some comments/questions/summary. I will try to address everything brought up on August 18 by Deflagro and Evrik.

At what point does consensus occur? Editor Deflagro invited a third party editor (Evrik) into the discussion. Evrik says my article "looks good". Even Deflagro says I "wrote a good article". The edit by Deflagro changed the intent of the article from being about the current entity (Old Kia Kima which did not exist until after 1996) to a past entity (the old camp Kia Kima which existed prior to 1963).

Other than the new lede, the only new information introduced in the edit by Deflagro is a statement about the property being purchased by OKKPA in 1998. This information is noted in the introductory paragraph and again in the History section. Everything else is taken from my original article but has been rearranged. In the edit by Deflagro a number of items were deleted or changed some of which I will concede in the interest of trying to reach consensus.

The following items were deleted by Deflagro: 1) the redirect from OKKPA, 2) the physical address of the camp, 3) the section about Old Kia Kima Preservation Association, 4) one of the entries listed under See also/External Links, 5) two of the entries listed under References.

I will concede deletion of items 1,2,4 and 5 but not 3. Old Kia Kima Preservation Association is an important and integral part of what Old Kia Kima is today and should be included.

The following items were changed by Deflagro: 1) the "Brief History" section was renamed "History", 2) the "See also" section was renamed "External Links", 3) the word "upriver" was added to the sentence about the camp moving in 1964, 4) the sentence about the Arkansas Register of Historic Places was enhanced to include "for historical significance and local architectural style", 5) the location.

I will concede changes 1,2,3 and 4 but not 5. The location for the camp has historically and traditionally been referred to as being on the South Fork River near Hardy, Arkansas. Even the KKSR Wikipedia article lists the location as Hardy, Arkansas.

I do not understand the proposed addition of "Main article: Kia Kima Scout Reservation" when there are already other appropriate links to the KKSR article.

Regarding the counter proposal by Deflagro for the lede. ("Old Kia Kima is a youth campground near Hardy, Sharp County, Arkansas, that is listed on the Arkansas Register of Historic Places for local historical significance and local architectural style. The campground was previously the site of Kia Kima Scout Reservation, a Boy Scouts of America summer camp, and many of the historic buildings have since been restored in the original architectural style.") I do not consider myself to be an expert writer but I feel I am above average and I see these 2 sentences to be long, wordy and difficult to read. I stand by my lede as written.

I do not understand Deflagro's need to edit the text of my article when it seems he is just trying to rearrange things I have already written.

To Deflagro, I think you are too humble in the way you describe your knowledge of these topics. The extensive Wikipedia edit logs would suggest you have a wide-ranged interest in subjects in the regions around Hardy, Arkansas and West Tennessee.

This experience has shown me that what happens in Wikipedia stays in Wikipedia forever, even some of the silly things and personal information we posted on our user pages when we first joined Wikipedia. Potscamp (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Potscamp, FWIW, I am an active editor, have edited on a number of scouting-related pages and help coordinate the Scouting wikiproject. Deflagro's edits were appropriate and helped bring the article in line with the manual of style. There s no change to OKKPA. The address can be placed in the infobox. The rest of the changes you speak of are cosmetic. How can we help you? --evrik (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Like Evrik, I've worked on Scouting articles where I see camps and councils missing articles. We have a WikiProject called WP:SCOUTING for editors who are interested in Scouting to work together to build up the Scouting articles. I've only tried to help, but I'm backing out on this since it seems I've struck a nerve. I changed the location from "on the South Fork River near Hardy, Arkansas" to "Cherokee Village, Arkansas" try and be more specific. I didn't realize I deleted the address, that was an accidental change when I edited it to Cherokee Village. I changed "See Also" to "External Links" because "See Also" is generally used for other internal Wikipedia articles. I deleted the architectural firm from the external links because it seemed more like an advertisement and didn't seem to add anything to the article. I assure you--my edits were all in good faith.   Deflagro   Contribs/Talk 15:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are new here. Wikipedia has a graveyard full of all the "camp articles" made by well-meaning editors. was trying to bring the page into alignment with the Manual of Style, and I think he should be thanked. Anyway, go ahead and add back those things "lost." Don't be surprised i it gets edited in a collaborative fashion. Also, I moved your photos to the commons. --evrik (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)