Talk:Philmont Ranger

Comments
This page is still under construction, with additional edits and information to follow quickly. As an eight-year veteran of the Philmont Scout Ranch Ranger Department, I would appreciate any edits to be mentioned here first. With that said, I welcome any assistance in building this page! Thank you. Owen1985
 * That's not how Wikipedia works. It clearly says at the bottom of every page before you hit *edit*, "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." With that said, thank you for starting this one!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your help.Owen1985 —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC).


 * This article makes no real claim to notability and certainly does not demonstrate notability by including independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail. It needs totally rewriting to avoid the advertising tone. I have removed a section of totally blatant advertising. Also as "an eight-year veteran of the Philmont Scout Ranch Ranger Department" you probably have a conflict of interest and you are certainly too close to the topic to write about it in an appropriate neutral way. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As the largest and most visible department of the largest youth facility in the world, the Philmont Ranger Department and, consequently, the Philmont Ranger is notable (over 20,000 people are guided by a Philmont Ranger each year). Aside from the Philmont Scout Ranch website, which is listed as a reference, I welcome contributors to include additional independent reliable sources, as well as edits to make the article more neutral in tone.  I disagree that I am too close to the topic to write about it in an appropriate way - much pertinent information regarding the position is unpublished and can only be gotten from someone with experience.  Someone without Philmont Scout Ranch or BSA experience could be a great neutral contributor, and I hope one arrives to make suitable edits.Owen1985
 * On wikipdia we do not use the term notable in the general sense that you use. We do not make expert judgements on whether something is notable or not. We look to see whether it has been well noted in detail by reliable sources. If so, we say it is notable and use those sources to write the article. "much pertinent information regarding the position is unpublished and can only be gotten from someone with experience" is completely unacceptable here. It is original research and it is not allowed. I strongly suggest that you carefully read the guidelines I have linked for you and learn how wikipedia works. Otherwise you are going to be an unhappy man. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  00:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am confused as to why the information about the two new leadership positions in the Ranger Department are being deleted, as they are cited with a PDF file from the Scouting.org website. I am reverting the edits deleting the mention of the new Ranger Department positions of Ranger Administrator and Venturing Coordinator.  Owen1985  —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC).
 * [[Image:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|alt=|link=]] You really need to stop, and you really need to listen to what others tell you. There is no reason for you to be confused about anything, if you bother to read, which you apparently don't. Both Bduke and I have tried to clean this turd up, and you keep undoing the cleaning. Would you prefer it be nominated for deletion? That's the way this is heading if you don't slow down and work with others; at this point if it's nominated I would completely agree.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If adding new and relevant information is considered "undoing cleaning" then, by all means, please nominate this article for deletion. Additionally, I don't see how "working with others" means rolling over and mutely accepting someone else's ideas., especially when such ideas are merely unexplained excisions. Wouldn't "working with others" also mean that you would think about accepting the inclusion of the new Ranger Administrator and Venturing Coordinator positions?  Since you offer no specific reason as to why they should be excluded and instead refer to the entire article in derogatory terms, it is clear to me that you are more interested in engaging in a personal vendetta and have little interest in maintaining the quality of the article.  The edit in question was one sentence in length and was supported by two external citations.  If this means that much to you, I encourage you to delete the article, for I have no wish to risk your pettiness any time new information comes available that I wish to include in the article.  Delete away!  Also, please continue to check my contributions and go after those articles as well.  Owen1985  —Preceding undated comment added 17:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC).


 * You were right to self-revert and remove the section on the positions. The point is that they are "crystal balling". We only know from Philmont that they are advertised. The positions may not be filled. Even if they are, do we have to mention every post at Philmont? They may not be notable. I think you really do need to work with others, as your lack of experience in wikipedia is showing. Just above, for example, you do not sign your comments correctly. You typed in your name, when you should have signed off with ~ (4 tildas). The real problem with the artcile is that the topic does not appear to be notable in wikipedia terms. Philmont is notable, but who outside Scouting notices the Rangers? There is no independent detailed reference that shows that the Rangers have been noticed and hence are notable. There are 4 references. 1 and 4 are internal Scouting references. 2 is clearly a self published account by a Philmont fan. 3 is a good reference about Philmont but it says little or nothing, I think, about the Rangers. Too much of the material here, even after I removed a lot last week, is just not encyclopedia material. It is the sort of material the reader should get from the Philmont web site. I believe this article should be merged into Philmont Scout Ranch and I will propose that. The main article already says quite a lot about the Rangers, and there will be little from this article that can actually be merged. Neverthelsess, I notice that the section in the main article needs improvement and the material here may help that. After the merge, this article will become a redirect there so the history of your efforts will not be lost. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, indeed we do not have to mention every post at Philmont. By that logic, however, there is a tremendous amount that could be removed from Wikipedia.  It would not take me long to discover countless articles that are less relevant than the Philmont Ranger article, including other Scouting-related articles, such as articles referring to Scouting in geographically-minute locales, such as Hong Kong or North West England.  Regarding references, a quick review of The Scout Association of Hong Kong page reveals references, with few exceptions, entirely from internal Scouting sources.  As for my inexperience in Wikipedia, that much is certainly evident.  It should not, of course, mean that I am the one who "does not work with others."  In fact, I feel that I have provided more explanation for my positions than many other editors, none of whom have attempted to work with me.  Shouldn't their experience grant them greater manners and respect for Wikipedia's emphasis on consensus?  And, as I have stated previously, I have searched for non-BSA articles on Philmont, to little avail, and would welcome them from any contributor.  I do not feel that the article should be deleted, but we shall see if my opinion reckons in any way with "consensus."  Owen1985 (Discussion)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC).


 * Chris and I are trying to help you. The notability guidelines does not say that all references should be independent detailed reliable sources. It just says they have to be there. The Scout Association of Hong Kong is a featured article, which is why it is on the main page today (?yesterday). There is a detailed process before an article can become a featured article. One thing you need to understand is that we never compare one article against another. Please read Other stuff exists. Yes, Scouting in North West England does need improving, just as many of the BSA Council articles do, but that has nothing to do with the issue here and you will get no friends by using that kind of argument. You are not working with others, because you are making no attempt to understand the policies and guidelines that we refer you to. Please read and understand them. They are important. Consensus is important and it can overrule guidelines in some case, but it has to be both strong and well argued. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You do have a point, and I will concede that I have not been trying as hard to work with others as perhaps I should. And I appreciate genuine help hthat I believe to be offered in good faith.  Nevertheless, I feel that the Wikipedia standards in which I have been recently drilled have not been followed by other editors and, instead of anything mutual, I was selected for rebuke due to my novice status.  According to my understanding, rebukes being accorded due to one's novice status is antithetical to Wikipedia.  While there is indeed an inferiority of content and a lack of diversity and external verifiability of the references, the responses to those critiques were not constructive.  As for never comparing one article against another, that seems quite suspect and opens up the door to countless abuses - an article may be deleted regardless of its quality compared to others in its field, based heavily on the biases of one editor/administrator or another.  I do appreciate your help and have no conflict with you, but feel antagonized by the questionable actions of other editors. Owen1985 (Discussion)  Owen1985 (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This article should not be deleted. I would recommend some edits, such as an inclusion of a History section (e.g., Donald Rumsfeld was a former Philmont Ranger).  There is a lot of history and tradition in the Ranger Department at Philmont Scout Ranch that needs to be stated.  If you deleted this article, it would almost feel like a bias.  You might as well delete articles about the traditions at U.S. universities. Dr.colin.rust  —Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC).


 * It is not being proposed for deletion. It is proposed that it be merged into the main Philmont article. The discussion on the merge is at Talk:Philmont Scout Ranch. Dr Rust, you also appear to not understand what we mean by notable on wikipedia. We are waiting for reliable independent sources that discuss the Ranger program. They have not been produced. When they are, we can think about keeping the article as it is, but until then it should be merged into the parent article where primary sources are sufficient. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  02:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

So if I'm understanding this correctly all that would needed is an independent resource not from the author linking the information given? I'd worked at Philmont long ago and still have a lot of the information they had given me and it would validate much of what is quarreled over in this discussion (being information straight from the organization). That being said couldn't I just scan/transcribe it and host it outside of Wiki making it a public independent resource? I'm not editing the page or even really contributing so it would not be a conflict of interest as Owen1985 could change the page based off the offical information I would host. I just know a lot of Scouters could benefit from this page and if independent sources are lacking I'd like to help. I'll admit I'm not sure about this which is why I'm asking here so to not be ridiculed later for having posted it and then be completely wrong (I'd rather not get gain Kintetsubuffalo's contempt for assuming I'm right Kintetsubuffolo's talkpage rules). --Bwolf457 (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC) — Bwolf457 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Oh dear, no, you most certainly can not do what you suggest. Please study the relevant guidelines like notability and reliable sources. It needs a reliable outside source that talks in detail specifically about the Rangers noting how important they are. A major newspaper or magazine article would be good, or a chapter in a non-Scouting book on New Mexico or the Rocky Mountains or trekking. Once that is there, we can use primary sources from Philmont itself for some details. However, much of the detail that has been added (some now removed) is not encyclopedic. It might well benefit Scouters, but it the job of Philmont to write web pages that benefit Scouters. It is not our job. If you want to put the information somewhere else for Scouters, I suggest you put it on the Scoutwiki. -- Bduke    (Discussion)  21:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is easy to understand why someone who has no experience with the department or position would see this as coming off as advertising, and I know I am just an anonymous name on the internet, but I support Owen1985 and what he is trying to do here, as a former ranger I think that there is substantial interest in seeing this as a separate page. I disagree that this article should be merged, and while I understand the notability argument, and the constant struggle to keep wikipedia organized as possible for users, I would offer the fact that nothing in this article is malicious, or misguiding and that those working on this article have a genuine interest in informing people about this niche area of scouting that has been slow in catching up with the times as far as online documentation.  At very least this article is benign and does not merrit the description of a 'turd.'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roundtableranger (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody is saying that anything in this article is malicious, or misguiding. That is not the issue.


 * This discussion here should cease and move to Talk:Philmont Scout Ranch where the merge discussion is taking place. I hope one of the WikiProject Scouting participants in the US will comment and help the discussion there as I am out of phase with you all as I live in Australia. All of you commenting here might benefit from reading some of the many sub-pages of the Scouting Project that explain how we try to write articles on Scouting that fit the wikipedia policies and guidelines. You might try working on some other articles. You all seem a bit too close to Philmont. Conflict of interest can be a problem here. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)