Talk:Great Lakes Field Service Council

Major work

Ok...not sure who made this page but it needs some major work in terms of sentance structure, and information provided. I think we need to develop each section with the most correct information. Writing in the article that scouts are forced to salute the flag, or that its an actual military flag ceremony are misleading facts....of course this is just an example to the many other issues I have with this. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Funke1rp (talk • contribs) 07:41, 13 January 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Cole.jpg

Image:Cole.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This picture has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Cole Canoe Base as far as I can tell. It appears to be a dance club in the 40's tho I do not know that for sure. Dachande (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Merit Badge chart

I added the chart of badges, with links to requirements. If anyone wants to help finish the links, please do so. Thanks! Can-Dutch 22:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

LOST Entry

Is the inclusion of "record held by Crew 25" really necessary? To me, this feels like it's being used as bragging space, rather than the inclusion of useful facts. I'll remove it until a solid contrary reason is given. Can-Dutch 17:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Doe Horn" fake campsite

I would like to request that "Doe Horn" is not added to the campsite list any more - besides not providing factual information, 18 items in a list that's headed with the phrase "Cole Canoe Base has 17 wonderful campsites" is a fairly obvious notice of that lack of factual information.

Also, I'm moving the campsites section ahead of summer program, that looks more relevant. Can-Dutch (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of "Doe Horn" (obviously a play on Buck Horn) and I've been going there since 1995. My guess is it is quasi-vandalism. If I notice it in the future I'll remove it, provided Cole doesn't add a campsite called Doe Horn. Dachande (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

History Section NPOV

Alright, I fully agree that Cole is an outstanding camp, and has an outstanding staff. I really do, I love it up there. But I don't think we can justify leaving those statements in the History opening without a citation about how awesome they are. Otherwise it's speculation and/or POV opinion. I'll look but everyone keep an eye out for something to substantiate this. Dachande (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"A" rating paragrah

Now the whole article needs reliable third party sources. I just picked the worst paragraph of them all.

Cole has been a Nationally Accredited “A” Rated summer camp facility since 1980(who says, where is this documented) , and its staff continues a fine tradition(what is so fine about it, who says it is fine and why do they think this) and commitment to service(how do I know that they are committed does some one else say they are commited) and excellence (what is excellence in this cases) that has made Cole the summer camp destination for hundreds(only hundreds how many really, where does it say this) of satisfied(I bet there are some unsatisfied) scout units.

This sentience could be improved like this maybe.

Cole has been a Nationally Accredited “A” Rated summer camp facility since 1980<ref>[http://www.place.com/page.html Cole's Website]</ref>. The staff has received a 94% rating on its troop satisfaction survey.<ref>[http://www.surv.com/newpage.html The Survey]</ref> R00m c (talk) 18:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Lets Look at a few things

Cole has been Nationally Accredited "A" Rated Summer Camp Facility since 1980. Who says you ask? Simple its the Central Region Inspection Team that inspects the camp every summer in order for us to be licensed to operate a child care facility. As for proof. The proof hangs in the Administration building. All 28 flags for the last 28 years, as well as the inspection certificates. There is also documentation at the council office so that all evidence is not lost in some large accident.

As for the Fine Tradition: Fine=Adjective Tradition=Noun and since its a noun and describes something that the Cole staff does the modifier simple adds emphasis to the noun showing its importance. If you knew anything about the camp really you would know that the camp in general prides itself on its traditions, as much as the Boy Scouts do. Further displayed by the new National BSA motto on its 100 year logo. "Where tradition meets tomorrow." If its seriously that big of a deal for you, then remove the "fine" from the sentence and it still reads correctly.

As for the commitment to service. Its a service oriented business. If you are not committed to service then you are not operating a camp correctly. How can I say that? I have taught National Camping School, its in EVERY certification course they offer. Since not every staff member attends national camping school, when we develop staff training its the main topic of instruction. Staff members are even assigned to each unit to insure its stay is pleasant. Proof is not in writing as much as it is in the substance of the organization. If it will make you feel better I can copy the unit satisfaction survey where they comment directly on our commitment to service and excellence.

As goes for everything there are ALWAYS cons to pros, yings to yangs, and satisfied to unsatisfied. It makes no sense to end an article with a statement such as "one unit is unsatisfied though." satisfaction is not cut and dry, in fact very few if any dislike the whole package. It is usually one facet of the program that a particular unit dislikes. Its a stupid statistic to keep becuase no one has ever filled out the form, or said to me at checkout that they hated the camp and would never return. Even if they were lieing, I know they left satisifed about something.

Provable facts. Its Wikipedia. Its an article about a scout camp. No where will you find such an article about this camp outdid that camp, or its customer satisfaction was this. Again a useless statistic to keep. Go moderate an article about astrophysics and be concerned with citing sources when they use adjectives to describe action. If it will make you happy I will stop using such descriptive wording and just say that: Cole (last name and nickname of Edward N. Cole Canoe Base). Boy Scout Camp (ref: Detroit Area Council ownership). Northern Michigan (ref: tax records to prove it exist). 130 Troops per summer. (ref: sign up records at council office).

No pages exist to prove it. The records exist, I have seen them but unless I am giving a specific statistic I am not going to go request the records from the camping department. Feel free to change away by the way. I tried to delete the whole page, but it said it was not a creative change. If you have the power please do.

This is a very thoughtful take on the issue. I agree that this is wikipedia and this is an article about a scout camp. However, all articles on Wikipedia should exists only if they have had significant third party coverage. What this means is Wikipedia is regurgitation of what other people have written about the world. (there is a difference in should and the reality of what happens. Often we can leave things incorrect and let others fix it up for us.) You need to offer readers sources to back what you say. Wikipedia does not allow original research. Also, we do not need just statistics, what I offered above was just an easy example.

About me and my editing:There is nothing I can do to improve astrophysics, sorry. I am not here to moderate either. I am here to make improvement where ever I can. I have never been to this camp, I have never heard of it before here.(It would be nice to visit though) But I don't have to have ever been there if the original editor added what they should have. An artilce should be written so some one who knows nothing about the subject can understand what is going on. If they have added there sources I can then check there and verify the content. Its not hard to check for formatting issues once you have been doing it for a while. Just so you know, I do have my own bias: I am an eagle scout. When I was younger I worked at a summer Camp Crooked Creek for 4 years. The article about CCC was deleted for lack notability witch was proved with the point of lack of sources.

About page deletion: Blanking the page is not the same as deleting it, because the article is still there in the history. Page blanking is often undone because it is considered vandalism. I don't think this page should be deleted, just improved into a better article. If you feel the article should be deleted review the reliant policy Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

About fancy wording. According to Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms "In Wikipedia articles, try to avoid peacock terms which merely promote the subject of the article without imparting real information." The use of "fine tradition" is such a peacock word.

About cons to pros: We need to have a Neutral point of view in this article. I gained from others who commented on this page that this article may have a problem with this issue. Im not really sure my self, I plan to leave that job for others to figure out.

R00m c (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Article assessment

I'm assessing this article as start-class for WikiProject Michigan. I'd tagged the article as having multiple issues, and I wanted to explain my concerns here:

• The article has no reliable third-party sources.
• The article has just five in-line citations (all to the council's own website), which is far too little for such a long article.
• The article contains far too much detail about the Cole Canoe Base and D-bar-A Ranch; consider trimming these to match the length of the Camp Agawam and Lost Lake sections.

Suggestions for further improvement:

• Histories of the antecedent councils.
• Update the Order of the Arrow lodge information.
• Eliminate the sub-sections in the "Districts" section.
• Is there anything that can be written about the districts beyond the areas they serve?
• Are there any special council programs outside what's done at the camps?

Thanks, cmadler (talk) 17:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I started to work on it but I probably won't bother until Area 2 Project goes through because all of this information could change within a couple months. PeRshGo (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on the amount of information within the Cole Canoe & D-Bar-A section I believe they warrant their own pages. The information is relevant and informative and would be a shame to simply delete it.Pale Horse One (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Order of the Arrow

I agree with the assessment that the Order of the Arrow section needed a lot of work. I made making the part about the current lodge the main section and rewrote the Migisi Opwawgan section. The main section described the temporary time before the two lodges merged with the new function as sort of an update. I switched that around so that it makes currently in hopefully will in the future. The Migisi Opawgan section was few disparate copied paragraph from the lodge's history website. I took to quoting the lodge history. It would be better to have third party sources, but I think this is an improvement. I'm no expert on the Chippewa Lodge, so that remains unchanged as a part of this update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earein (talk • contribs) 01:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)