Wikipedia

Talk:Cradle of Liberty Council/Archive 2

< Talk:Cradle of Liberty Council
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Gadget850 in topic Headquarters controversy
Archive 1Archive 2

Neutrality Warning --- concerning "risk of losing $62 million"

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I added in a section about the value of $62 million in potential loss versus the high cost of civil liberties, which the Boy Scouts' current rule does not uphold. Someone removed it and left in the original statement. This is amateurish. I'm willing to come to some compromise, but the article is clear slanted toward the position of the Scouts, and either it must be balanced with counter arguments or the general tone must be neutralized and become more encyclopedic. Hence the neutrality warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.253.71 (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Musser Scout Reservation

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

Camp exists to support the council and is not notable outside the council. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. For two reason: 1) To be consistent with the other camps in the council which have not been requested to be merged. For consistency then Resica Falls Scout Reservation & Treasure Island Scout Reservation should be merge. Which if they were, then it would be natural to want to split these articles to due article size and readability. 2) I think separate notability can be established for this camp via America's Oldest Boy Scout Camps and among other sources.
Is there a centrally located discussion at WP:Scouting for these collection of mergers? I think there should be, if not. These types of discussions have been had before (see Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)/Archive2#Redux revisited and other times, and my recollection is that they were contentious. Personally, I don't agree with the extrapolated reasoning, but will go along with any consensus. Mitico (talk) 12:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
There are several discussions that are rather scattered at WT:SCOUT. Merge opposed and removed; plans to merge Resica Falls Scout Reservation and Treasure Island Scout Reservation dropped. This will leave those camps as some of the few left in Category:Local council camps of the Boy Scouts of America. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Resica Falls merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is another merge proposal to merge Cradle of Liberty camps on Resica Falls Scout Reservation. I think this is a poor idea just as discussed above. I am not sure why WP:SCOUT members continue to generate merge proposals. No councils, no camps ...why not just merge everything right to Boy Scouts of America? Anyway, merging this article is a bad idea because 1) The Resica Fall article has established its own notability, to the point that it was featured on the main page 2) as stated above, if merged, then it makes sense to merge the other camps, which would then create an article long enough to require splitting the article. Mitico (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A discussion should have been started with reasoning for the merge proposal. I will take the lead here and do so:
The article does not meet standards per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies); specifically: "Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area."
  • there are no Wikipedia:reliable sources that establish notability outside of the local area.
  • there is no evidence that the camp has a separate existence outside of the council.
  • there is no evidence that the camp offers any significant services outside of the council.
Appearing as a DYK does not establish notability; I'm aware of several articles that made DYK and were later deleted. The key is that the article does not establish notability outside the local area; neither do Musser Scout Reservation and Treasure Island Scout Reservation. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In the abscence of any further discussion, I would like to remove the merge tag from this article. The camp contains a notable waterfall along the Bushkill Creek. References have been provided that point to its notability outside of scouting and its locale. New York Time, ESPN articles, and a couple of books and magazine article are now referenced in the article. The camp also received significant media coverage (which is not currently in the article) in 2002 due to a fatal lightening strike & BSA policy regarding safety. Further discussion is welcome. -Mitico (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Closed. No discussion, no consensus. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 17:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Council

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As there are two councils involved in the dispute over the headquarters, the Cradle of Liberty Council and the Philadelphia City Council, it may be wise to make it clear what council is be referred to when discussing the dispute rather then just saying council Nil Einne (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

→Philadelphia Council no longer exists. It retains its name from the old merger of the Vally Forge district, is all.Patricoo (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge Camps into this article

Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

It has been proposed to merge the three council camps (Musser, Resica, and Treasure Island) into this article. While the camps themselves may or may not truly be notable on a wide scale, the individual articles do not adequately establish and cite their notablilty. A lot of the information on the individual pages is unsourced, somewhat cruft-like, and irrelevant to an encyclopedic article. I do not think merging the information would result in overwhelming this article (see user:ScouterSites/Cradle of Liberty Council) or result in loosing anything important. If the coverage of any of these camps grows (enhancing relevant information, citing reliable sources, and expanding quality coverage) then they can always be split out to their own articles once again. But currently they are just messy, unsourced, cruft-attracting clutter. - ScouterSites (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Merge See my reasoning on previous discussions above. Nothing has changed in 18 months. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge Let's make this happen, finally. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Articles clearly claims and cites notability. Nothing at WP:MERGE inclines a merger. "Messy, unsourced, cruft-attracting clutter" is a mischaracterization, and still is not a reason for merger. This is just a case of the "I don't like it's." Mitico (talk) 00:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge. the references in all three articles are not sufficient to support notability for individual articles. A paper mentioning a tourist attraction, for example, is not enough. Other references merely support the name or are not independent. The lack of decent sources is a reason for merge, if not a reason for deletion, although I think the current references support the material, but not an independent article, so deletion is not an issue. This merge should be done. The material on the camps will not be lost. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
As per the discussion above, I am going to go ahead and merge the pages. If the coverage of any of the topics grow appropriately, then they can always be split out into separate articles. ScouterSites (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Suit

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

PHILADELPHIA, PA, June 16, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – On Tuesday opening arguments were heard in a case involving the Cradle of Liberty Scout Council, which is challenging the city of Philadelphia's decision to evict the Council from a building that it built and has maintained since 1929. The city said it would carry through with the eviction unless the Council rejected the Boy Scouts of America's policy banning open homosexuals from membership.

Suit over Boy Scout Homosexual Discrimination Opens (See also www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2536487/posts) --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Headquarters controversy

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This section needs to edited to correct the tense and to summarize the main article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Just did so. The details are in the underlkying article on the court case and I just moved a summary here. -- GCW50 17:29, 19 December 2010

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cradle_of_Liberty_Council/Archive_2&oldid=1064613628"