Talk:Philmont Scout Ranch/Archive 2

Bias?
The Conservation Department is the blood that flows through Philmont and allows it to survive. anyone else think this may be too biased? also, maybe someone has a few ideas to re-write it and make it less biased. Mikeboatlake 05:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Definite bias, remove or major reword needed. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Crashed airplane
I thought there was also a crashed airplean at philmont. Poohman0 (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, there's the B-24 Wing on Trail Peak. Wreckage of an Army Air Forces B-24D Liberator bomber is located just below the crest. Crashed on April 22, 1942. There is also a more recent crash up towards French, but I don't recall most of the details. Zybthranger (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Dhouldent we put something like that in the artical Poohman0 (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In 1942, a B-24 Liberator crashed into the side of Trail Peak. Waite Philips led a rescue crew up, but 5 people were lost, including 2 Eagle scouts. Some of the wreckage still remains, including a wing and propeller.


 * This is already in the article. Zybthranger (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Clean Up
External Links:


 * Philsearch: An interactive trek planner and virtual ranch tour
 * The Philmont Explorer A searchable database of Philmont trek itineraries and other information

I feel like we should get rid of one of these, the two of them seem a bit overkill.

Got rid of a few other links. There seemed to be quite a few that have piled up.

Currently I'm giving the page a quick clean up. Zybthranger (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In regards to some of the photo-resizing, all of those changes were to effect how the text wrapped around the picture. Things like making the photo a little bigger so that all of a paragraph would be to the side of the photo, as opposed to the last sentence ending up below it. I think it looks better. Zybthranger (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Movie
Documentary scheduled for release in November: http://www.philmontmovie.com/ ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there any info/reviews out yet about it yet? cheers --Guerillero &#124; My Talk 22:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Page expansion
Is there interest in creation additional pages, perhaps one per department, with additional information? I could easily see the Ranger, Conservation, Backcountry, and Wrangler Departments having their own pages linked to the Philmont Scout Ranch page. These pages could be excellent sources of information for prospective applicants, many of whom may be curious but not quite ready to request mailed brochures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owen1985 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please remember the focus here is an encyclopedia with a general audience, not information for applicants. You can start something at WikiProject Scouting/Article incubator, announce it at WP:SCOUT and see where it goes. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 17:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge of Philmont Ranger
It is proposed that Philmont Ranger be merged here. Please start by looking at the discussion at Talk:Philmont Ranger. It appears that that the Rangers do not meet out notability guidelines for a stand alone article, but the topic deserves notice on the main page for Philmont. Indeed it is already noticed and once more advertising material and non-encyclopedic material is removed from the Ranger article, there will be little to add. However, I think it may help to improve the Ranger section in this article. Please discuss the proposal below:


 * Support merge as above and as on Talk:Philmont Ranger. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  20:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The position of Philmont Ranger, due to its necessity for all Philmont trek participants, should have its own page. Those seeking to learn more about the Philmont Ranger may find such information in a less-crowded, more easily-accessible article than if it were included in the lengthy Philmont Scout Ranch article.  I disagree that the Rangers do not meet our notability guidelines for standalone articles.  Owen1985 (Discuss)
 * If it meet our notability guidelines, the article would contain sources that demonstrate that, but it does not. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Support merge per Bduke. The author, Owen1985, has shown absolutely no willingness to listen to anyone, and continues to bite anyone else who edits-along the way violating five points of the Scout Law. It won't get any better, sadly.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not realize that blindly and mutely accepting all unexplained edits by others was "biting." As for violating points of the Scout Law, perhaps Kintetsubuffalo might wish to pick up a dictionary and look up the terms "courteous," "kind," and "friendly." I find Kintetsubuffalo's condescenscion annoying and wonder why this issue has been such a thorn in his side, especially one to the point where he has taken it upon himself to look up my edits on other articles and, without explanation, revert them as well.  I encourage edits to this article - I only struggle to fathom the anger with which this editor has failed to accept any disagreement from another.  A Scouter should behave in a more mature manner.  It won't get any better, sadly. Owen1985 (Discuss) 12:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Strong Support While Rangers are important I can not see that they are WP:N. I can not see any reliable secondary sources about them. If they appear in the future it is fairly easy to undo the merger. I only ask that this be done tastefully. Cut and Paste mergers look bad and detract from articles. Also owen can you please stay civil and stop the personal attacks; they aren't going to get you very far here. cheers. --Guerillero &#124;  My Talk   15:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no wish for personal attacks and simply wish that they had not been made upon me first. As one can see from reading my posts, I have remained quite civil and simply wish to clarify issues. At no point have I leveled an insult at anyone, only suggested that a Scouter would remember the Scout Law and its points before he accused someone else of violating them.  I simply try to defend myself and my views; I would hardly call that "attacking" someone.  Remember, a Scout is brave.Owen1985 Owen1985 (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe Guerillero should have encourage all attacks to stop on this article's creation not just those in defending ones own position. If Guerillero had read any of the postings from Kintetsubuffalo he would see that Owen1985 was only defending himself after being provoked and himself attacked by a more experienced user.  While a merge would probably be adequate I personally would just like to see the information in the Ranger article published so it can be viewed by others wanting to attend Philmont.  Owen1985 feels this information is extremely important from his years on staff which is understandable.  All I'm seeing in this discussion is bolstering not solutions. --bwolf457 20:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwolf457 (talk • contribs)  — Bwolf457 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Support merge. I like a lot of the information that Owen1985 added.  But I think that it would be better placed within this article, as opposed to a separate article.  As a former Ranger myself (and coworker of Owen1985 and Bwolf457) I am very sympathetic to all of their arguments.  I do agree with Bwolf457 that Kintetsubuffalo has also been somewhat uncivil, but also that Owen1985 needs to understand that Wikipedia has a pretty good guideline to determine what things get their own article.  I was disappointed when the Tobasco Donkeys article was removed, but you have to draw the line somewhere as to what does and does not get an article.  And unlike the TD article where all of the information was removed, Ranger can be easily integrated into the PSR article.  However, over at http://en.scoutwiki.org/Main_Page, your article would be great, and I'm sure you could come up with even more on that would work perfectly at that site.  Zybthranger (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge complete
Pursuant to the consensus here, I have completed the partial merge in accordance with WP:MERGE. Regards —Eustress talk

Official and unofficial web sites?
The unofficial and official web sites seemed to have merged into one. I'd need to tidy up the links at the High Adventure bases article, but first I was wondering if anybody knows what the story is? This article now also has two EL's going the the same place. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:52, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.philmontscoutranch.org/ is registered to the BSA. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 23:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Donation conditions which I tagged
Prior to my recent edits in that spot it said:


 * In giving it to the Scouts, he included three provisions: that his horse Gus could stay there until his death, that his family could come and visit the ranch, and that it remain a working cattle ranch.

I recently added:
 * However, according to author Lawrence Murphy, the only condition was that it be used "for the benefit of the members of the Boy Scout organization" and the second larger donation had only the condition that it pay its fair share of taxes on any portion devoted to competitive commercial operations.

The first one appears to be in error, I tagged it for sourcing. I plan leave it for a few months and then delete it if no sourcing is supplied. Any thoughts/objections? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "according to author Lawrence Murphy, the only condition was that it be used "for the benefit of the members of the Boy Scout organization" and the second larger donation had only the condition that it pay its fair share of taxes on any portion devoted to competitive commercial operations"
 * Never heard that one before. The three provisions you describe as 'in error' are the only ones I've ever seen in reference to Philmont.  You should probably check that out before deleting it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.222.149 (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, checking it out is why it was deleted. North8000 (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Section needed on training
Philmont is both a high-adventure base and a training site. I'm surprised there isn't anything about training with a link to Philmont Training Center, where the bulk of the content should go. Here is a list of programs they provide. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not surprised because it looks like Philmont Training Center should be merged to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.222.149 (talk) 19:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good points. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Rodeo Dr.
Going from memory, I remember hearing that Waite Phillips later did land development in Los Angelos and name Rodeo Drive after the name of his fly-fishing place Rodeo at his ranch, now the name of a campsite/activity area. If it were true and sourced, that would be interesting. Rodeo Drive is named after a campsite in a Scout camp. North8000 (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The article on Rodeo Drive contradicts this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 13:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the article really doesn't specifically discuss naming.  I did find this  which said the he owned the land which later became developed into Rodeo drive.  &  and  say something similar. Not that these are sufficiently rs to put the material in.   North8000 (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 1769 in conjunction with El Rodeo de las Aguas and 1854 for Rancho Rodeo de las Aguas. You do know that Rodeo Drive is pronounced ro-day-o. And three of your links are Wikipedia mirrors. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * But the discussed content is not from Wikipedia. I think that what actually happened is that I read it at the museum in New Mexico, including about him choosing the name of his favorite fly-fishing site.   But in any event I'm unsure myself, and have no sourcing to that effect. North8000 (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent removal of camps info
Agree that it was too detailed before, but I think that there is too little on them now in this article. Considering their high importance in any description of the ranch or its programs they are important to the top level article. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 10:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the body of the relevant content about the camps has been moved to another article, it's only necessary to summarize at a high level what the reader will find in the main article. Otherwise you run into the hazard of having to maintain information in two places, which is expressly what using two articles is meant to avoid. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points.  But IMHO having a summary (rather than a high level summary) in the top level article is most ideal.   IMHO this makes for a well-balanced informative top level article and also seems to be what the guidelines suggest.  The guidelines acknowledge and accept that this requires some synchronization work; i.e. that eliminating that work is not a high priority.
 * BTW, nice work on these articles! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge of Tooth of Time, Mt Baldy, Urraca Mesa, and Mt Phillips
It is proposed that Tooth of Time, Mt Baldy, Urraca Mesa, and Mt Phillips be merged here. The small individual articles seem unnecessary because I doubt they'll get expanded - but if they do expand, they can be broken off at that point. I think the information will be better managed and sourced in the Location and geography section of Philmont Scout Ranch. ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 18:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the proposal below:


 * The ideal target for collection of these stubs would be the Cimarron Range, but that is a redirect to the Sangre de Christo Range. So, as I suppose the four peaks and features could fit within the Ranch article, I'm assuming the ranch includes them all - not that familiar with the boundaries there, and not likely to make the Cimarron redirect into an article any time soon :) Heh, just discovered the Cimmaron Range is in Colorado by misspelling... Vsmith (talk) 21:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * IMO a key consideration is whether the merge would cause loss of good content when the article is compressed into what would be an appropriate-sized space for it in the main Philmont article.  I think that such a merge would now or eventually cause a loss of too much good material with the Baldy, Tooth and Phillips articles.   This ultimately derives from these being a big enough of a topic for being an individual article. So I lean towards opposing merging of those three.  Such is not the case with the the Urraca Mesa article and I support and suggest doing that merge. It should probably be compressed into a few sentences.  One section in there is generic for the whole area rather than being info specific to the topic. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with North8000, there is too much information on these pages to merge them all into the Philmont Scout Ranch page, which is why I thinkl we should merge them all into a new List of peaks in Philmont Scout Ranch article, and we could add information on the other peaks to the article as well. We could objectively decide if a peak is worth mentioning by whether or not it is named on the most recent overall map. Woknam66  talk James Bond 01:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There are quite a few peaks listed on the overall. I only have the old overall wall map with me at the moment, not the current overall, but that lists: Rayado, Crater, Lookout, Burn, Trail, Bonito, Garcia, Schaefers, Black, Bear, Big Red, Comanche, Phillips, Cito, Hart, and Baldy.  I think there are three questions to decide if and where to move the stub content.
 * Should the four articles remain four separate articles or be merged into the Philmont Scout Ranch page or their own combined article?
 * Yes, as the individual articles are underdeveloped stubs and are not receiving adequate attention as separate articles. Everyone seems to agree with this point. ~ZR
 * Should the combined articles go to a Philmont page (either Philmont Scout Ranch or something like Geography of Philmont) or a Cimarron Range page?
 * I'm leaning towards the former. My guess is that the only reason these pages were made was because of their affiliation with Philmont, although at the moment, Ranch related information makes up only a small portion of the articles.  And the main sources are general mountain information sites. ~ZR
 * Should the combined articles go in the Location and geography section of Philmont Scout Ranch or a new Geography of Philmont page?
 * I've been waffling back and forth on this one, but am currently sided with the former. At the moment, the four articles are essentially four paragraphs on the features and I think merging their current forms together would result in no loss of good content because there's not much there to begin with.  I'm not 100% convinced of that fact, so I'm going to play with the information in my userspace to see if it will work.  Of course, if more sourced information is added, then it can be moved to a separate article, but I'm not sure if it's quite to that point now. ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 14:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * First, my only clear-cut opinion is that Urraca Mesa should not be a separate article. Aside from that, all of the possibilities (including the status quo) look OK and so don't take my opinions as strong opinions.  That said, I think that Tooth of Time, Baldy, Mount Phillip article are more short articles than stubs and would be OK as is.   Also that they would be too squeezed in the main Philmont article.  I really really like the idea of a Philmont geography article, doubly so if by title wording or interpretation it included flora and fauna. An article at a "in-between" level of specialization (narrower than top level Philmont article, broader than individual mountain articles) would probably be the ideal solution regarding for the proper amount of coverage. North8000 (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Geography and Ecology of Philmont perhaps? ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 15:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool! Or Geography and Ecology of Philmont Scout Ranch ? North8000 (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Geography and Ecology of Philmont Scout Ranch is definitely the better article name. I just got six or so books from the Tooth of Time Traders, so when I finally have free time (hopefully next week), I'll work on making the article or adding more info and citations.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 14:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool! North8000 (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree Merging the info into the main Philmont article is appropriate at this time. If the peak related info grows, it can always be split out into a separate article later. AltSkitMan (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * IMHO the peak info is already too much to put into the main article. The most recent comments are towards a new article "Geography and Ecology of Philmont Scout Ranch".  Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I am with north on this one. The peaks of philmont have been discussed by sources too much to lump them back into the main article -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  02:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It only took a month of hacking at it, but I finally got my Geography and Ecology of Philmont Scout Ranch up to a decent spot. There's still a few spots I want to expand on, but it looks good enough to move into the main space.  Thoughts?  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 01:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nice! Excellent article on a very interesting topic. North8000 (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed the title and cleaned up the refs (hint: I believe these are used in other articles). One dead link, tagged. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 18:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge&mdash;into the Geography and Ecology of Philmont Scout Ranch article. Nice work! I agree with others that the stubby articles on the various peaks aren't sustainable on their own and should be merged into your new article. Sorry for the lack of comment earlier. Been away for a while. — btphelps (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge of Rayado Program
It is proposed that Rayado Program be merged here. There is already a Rayado Program subsection of Philmont Scout Ranch and all information in Rayado Program is covered in Rayado Program subsection. I think that keeping Rayado as a subsection as opposed to an individual page is the best plan. ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 18:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the proposal below:
 * I think that this would be a good merge. North8000 (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur. Do the merge. AltSkitMan (talk) 20:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  02:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge of Roving Outdoor Conservation School
I've gone ahead and merged Roving Outdoor Conservation School. This seems noncontroversial to me, but if there is opposition we can change it back. ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 16:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool. North8000 (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The Boy Scouts of America Earn a Complete Geospatial Picture of Its Philmont Ranch
http://www.esri.com/news/arcnews/summer11articles/the-boy-scouts-of-america-earn-a-complete-geospatial-picture-of-its-philmont-ranch.html

---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 11:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool.  If nobody else does it first  I'll work something in on that.  North8000 (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a few lines about it into the Conservation/GIS section. Also ended up reworking the entire Cons sections.  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 13:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Transportation
Zybthranger deleted much of this section and then put the cut down text into "Trek Experience" section, rather do an edit war, I have put the text here, as it would be useful to anyone going to Philmont.

Amtrak's service on the Southwest Chief is a very popular way to get to and from Philmont, the closest station is in Raton (RAT). Southwest Chief runs between Los Angeles Union Station in downtown Los Angeles, California and Chicago Union Station, with a number of stops between. During the months of June, July and August, the Southwest Chief is used by thousands of Scouts traveling to and from Philmont via the Raton Amtrak Station. During those months the Raton station is occupied by Amtrak employees and handles checked baggage, but there is no ticket agent in Raton. A railroad car is usually reserved for scouts to use and checked baggage is stored separate for quick unloading at Raton. Southwest Chief train has a formal dining car that scout leaders can reserve for meals. A informal snack bar in the lower level of the Lounge car is also on board, that scouts can use on their own. A Philmont shuttle bus can be reserved in advance for transport transportation to and from Raton to Philmont, the bus will stop for meals, if needed, by request. There is private plane service at Raton Municipal Airport, but there is no commercial flight at the Raton Municipal Airport. Close by commercial airports are the Albuquerque International Sunport airport (223 Miles away) to the Southwest, Denver International Airport (281 miles away) to the North, Colorado Springs Airport (190 miles away), Pueblo Memorial Airport (159 miles away) with service to Denver and Rick Husband Amarillo International Airport (220 miles away). Commercial chartered buses are available to and from the airports and some cities. . Greyhound Lines services Raton with a Bus stop on Clayton Highway, a Philmont shuttle bus can be reserved for pick at the bus stop also. Cimarron, New Mexico is the closest town to Philmont. The major road to Philmont is New Mexico State Road 21, it runs from Philmont to Cimarron. The major highways in Cimarron are US 64 and MN state road 58, both link up to I-25, also called US 87 through Raton. . Also in Raton, one block from the train depot, is a private Scouting museum at 400 South 1st Street.

If your travels do not work out to get your group to Philmont on your start day, there are also places to stay near Philmont.

Thanks for your efforts towards a good article. I think that 2-3 enclyclopedic sentences on this would be good. IMHO the item above is too long and detailed, and worded like travel advice instead of enclyclopedic wording. North8000 (talk) 02:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The same reasoning is why the identical transportation section at Philmont Training Center was reduced. It's actually only reduced to six sentences, which is still quite a lot.  Your transportation section for The Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve on the other hand is shorter while keeping all relevant information and had good encyclopedic wording.  Additionally, the talk page is not the place for information removed from the article.  If you feel that there needs to be a discussion about some edits, you can explain your feelings and reasoning here, and if sections of it need to be re-added, people can access the edit history to recover that text.  It also helps to sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ).  ZybthRanger(talk) (contribs) 13:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ute Park Fire
CNN reports 1:11 pm ET Sunday that 12 to 14 outbuildings have burned in Philmont Scout Ranch. 2601:8A:C100:84CC:C1B3:439C:C80D:7E4D (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Non-relevant info regarding mortgage
The recent edit in the lead-in paragraph to note that the ranch secures a line of credit is irrelevant and has no place, especially in the opening paragraph. It appears to be added purely to stir controversy. Thoughts on removal? Pale Horse One (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pale Horse One (talk • contribs) 02:47, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * There are many many problems with the attempted insertion as is. Derived from a sparse primary source, the only source is a sparse primary source, no significance or context established, no really informative content. If they can get a better source that establishes some significance, then something should probably go in the body of the article.  North8000 (talk) 11:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Source is not sparse. Full legal documents from both Colfax County Clerk and Washington DC Recorder are cited. Significant in regards to ownership and title of property. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feralcat19 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I had combined two things in that sentence. First is that it's a primary source, which sometimes meets WP:Verifiability but never meets the requirements for establishing wp:weight.  But by "sparse" I meant that there is little content in there to derive text for a Wikipedia article. My recommendation would be to find a source that discusses it a bit more, and then put 1-2 sentence in somewhere in the body of the article (not the lead) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll do what I suggested that you do. I'll start by putting your edit back in and then add sourcing and a couple sentences.North8000 (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)