Talk:Cradle of Liberty Council/Archive 1

Camp articles, and why they should stay separate

The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

• Treasure Island - Should stand alone. --evrik 16:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Resica Falls Scout Reservation - Can be developed, nominated today for Template_talk:Did_you_know#August_11 --evrik 16:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge tags

I have added merge tags to the two council camp articles, as per the Rules and Standards of the Scouting WikiProject. -- CampMinsi 06:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Looking at the history here, it's very clear that CampMinsi is violating the fourth point of the Scout Law by tagging the camp articles of another council because of Kintetsubuffalo's merger of Camp Minsi. I know that Kintetsubuffalo is WP:AGF, but I believe that instead of merging camp articles, they should be expanded and defended. --evrik 00:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I was asked for an independent opinion on these articles. I am not a scout, and have only lived in PA for a few years, but in reading through these articles, I would endorse the comments to keep them independent and not merge them. They are OK as stand alone articles, and for a reader who is not familiar with these organizations, the separate articles are fine. Scott Mingus 01:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Resica Falls Scout Reservation merge

• agree to Resica merge-as per the standard which was set and agreed upon early in 2006. The only reasonable exceptions to established policy would be if a camp had a significance beyond the local region-i.e. a camp where a National or World Jamboree was held, or a longstanding national program available to the bulk of Scouts was created there, or similarly significant outside of its vicinity. So the first Scout camp on Mars, or the camp where President Schwarzenegger reaches peace between North and South Koreas, would be good candidates for stand alone articles. Chris 17:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Disagree I disagree with the policy (as Chris knows.

1. I think that the article is substantial enough to stand on its own.
2. This article was also featured on Did you know.
3. As a member of WikiProject Pennsylvania and WikiProject Philadelphia I think these articles should all remain separate. --evrik 00:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Finally, the Cradle of Liberty Council article would be cluttered by this merger. --evrik 00:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The policy exists (as you acknowledge above), and has for over half a year. That you disagree does not give you the right to revert merges. I have established policy behind me on this, and the Scouting project facilitator has acknowledged that camps are sub-council entities and so fall under the policy. Chris 00:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• The policy is shortsighted, wrong and against the wiki spirit. If more than three people cared about it, maybe we could change it. --evrik 00:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Way more than three people voted for it back in February. You win some, you lose some. Chris 01:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. This is a cross-project discussion. Recall, WP:CCC. This violates that, which says consensus can change. It formerly was called No Binding Decisions. If two WikiProjects have dissenting conventions, perhaps it should come up for some kind of vote? Personally, I am opposed to merging these articles, as they both have substance to them. --myselfalso 01:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merger as per myselfalso above. Squamate 02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agree to merge Dddstone 12:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Notes

It appears that all of the Philly.com references have 404ed. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 18:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• yes, but the date and the names of the articles are all still accurate. --evrik ^(talk) 14:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cats

I just removed this category added by Jagz. I think its addition is pushing POV. The council is not an issue. --evrik ^(talk) 14:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Unami Lodge One usage

Because National does not recognize lodge numbers, is it still appropriate for us to use them here? --EightBall1989 22:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Each lodge has it's own number. They always have. --evrik ^(talk) 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I just double checked the re-charter form. I guess when national stopped using the lodge numbers to refer to lodges for events, I assumed that meant they were no longer recognized at all. --EightBall1989 23:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Some related links

• http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=137754
• http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51251
• http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=39982&p=1
• http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=158756&p=1

Some related links. --evrik ^(talk) 19:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/philly.html

Repeated insertion of uncited/unsupported statement

The following discussions are an archived debate. Please do not modify it.

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Evrik has repeatedly re-inserted an uncited and unsupported statement that the city "reversed" its decision due to an upcoming mayoral race. Also, the anchor nametags of "weasels", "slipperyweasels", etc are indications that he is grossly partisan in his editing.Brian Westley (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

email from Evrik claims that his cited article (http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/8161352.html) supports his claims; the word "mayor" does not appear in this opinion piece - the word "race" does not appear. The opinion piece does not refer to an upcoming mayoral race at all. The opinion piece does not say the city reversed its decision. The city claims the BSA did not respond to inquiries about their proposed nondiscrimination statement. I have seen no newspaper reports that the city reversed its decision; an opinion piece written by a BSA member is not an unbiased source even if it DID make these claims.Brian Westley (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Evrik has put back in his uncited statement, and once again I have removed it.Brian Westley (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, my changes are apparently considered "vandalism", because I keep removing uncited statements. "slippery weasels" indeed.Brian Westley (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is the sentence that I keep removing: "Afterward, the city reversed its decision because it threatened to become a campaign issue in the tough re-election fight Street faced against Republican Sam Katz in the upcoming mayoral election"

Here is the text of the entire article cited for the above sentence. Nowhere does it support the above sentence. In addition, it is an opinion piece written by a BSA member, not an unbiased source.

Chilutti, Mark (June 25, 2007). "The Other Side Of The Boy Scout Story". Philadelphia Inquirer.

• I went ahead and removed the Chilutti reference from that one point and added the fact template back on. I will find the correct source after the holiday and add it in. FWIW, you failed to mention that 1) the Perry op-ed is slanted, as are the PGN pieces (but they're still included); 2) you also kept reverting the language about "in perpetuity" though it was clearly sourced; and 3) this is your first attempt to discuss anything, and that's only after violating WP:3RR and WP:Sock. --evrik ^(talk) 04:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Op-eds are fine if included as opinion; using an opinion piece as a basis of a factual statement like "the city reversed its decision" is not. If the city council reversed its decision, that would be part of the public record, and not a matter of opinion. The language about "in perpetuity" is not correct. A lease "in perpetuity" simply means it doesn't need to be periodically renewed, but its use in the article suggests that the lease can never end, which isn't true - the lease has always had a 1-year notice that either the city or the BSA council could exercise to end the lease. And you repeatedly reinserted the sentence with the bogus cite after my edits clearly pointed out that the cite didn't support the sentence at all, and your reinsertions were without comment, unlike my removals. And why are you adding anchor tags with names like "weasels" and "slipperyweasels"? Sounds like you're trying to make hidden editorial comments. Your first addition of weasel wording was 15:14, 1 June 2007 here as the source shows. You added many more on 25 October 2007.Brian Westley (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• Op-eds in major publications have to be fact checked and can’t totally make up facts. Now the sentence in question is the one that has to be sourced. I haven’t had the opportunity to get to the library to find the Inquirer article that discusses that particular sentence. I think the sentence can be reworded to show that the city backed off of enforcement because of the election. We can quibble about “reversed” then. You keep saying that the language about "in perpetuity" is not correct, and yet that is sourced – several times. Here is one: Slobodzian, Joseph A. (June 1, 2007). "Council votes to end city lease with Boy Scouts". Philadelphia Inquirer. The fact is the scouts built the building and then donated it back to the city with the understanding that they would have the building from that point on. --evrik ^(talk) 22:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Op-eds make up facts all the time. And unless you can quote a city councilmember stating that they "backed off enforcement" due to the election, it's someone else's speculation on the city council's motives, which again is opinion, not fact. And from what I read, the city didn't "back off enforcement", they tried for years to get some kind of compromise that would satisfy both the city council and the BSA. And no, it's ridiculous to assert that the BSA council would have the building from that point on, because the lease has always had a one-year notice that could be exercised to terminate the lease. The BSA could only expect to have it as long as they were in good graces with the city, and "in perpetuity" does not mean the lease will never be terminated, it only means the lease will never lapse. If you have a one-year lease that also says the lease can be terminated with 30 days notice, you can't point to the one-year lease language to fight an eviction if the landlord gives you 30 days notice after six months. And you still haven't explained your "weasel" anchor tags.Brian Westley (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• As I said before, I have to go research that one to find the newspaper article that was the source of the comment about the election. You can keep going on about "in perpetuity," but its sourced. The fact is that until the city council voted to reverse themselves, the "perpetual" lease was in effect. that's sourced as well. --evrik ^(talk) 04:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence as it is phrased is NOT sourced; it says:

This came despite the fact that the building itself was built and paid for by the Scouts, and given to the city with the understanding that the Scouts would be allowed to remain in it "in perpetuity."

The cited articles state:

cite 20

Diaz said the Council vote was the last step required to end the lease under the 1928 ordinance that leased the land to the scouts "in perpetuity."

cite 11 does not contain the phrase "in perpetuity"

cite 21 is written by an extremely biased writer, Hans Zeiger, and he is no expert on lease language. He states:

Almost 80 years ago, the City of Philadelphia granted to the local Boy Scouts a low-cost rent on land at 22d and Winter Streets, "in perpetuity."

The only proper cite is 20, which does NOT say 'the Scouts would be allowed to remain in it "in perpetuity."', it properly identifies the lease as a lease "in perpetuity", which means the lease doesn't lapse every X years or whatever. The sentence has to match what the cite says, which is about the LEASE terms.

The council did not reverse themselves; they simply exercised the clause in the lease that allows them to terminate it by giving one year's notice.

And you have YET to address your "weasel" anchor tags. Why did you use such inflammatory tags? It destroys your credibility.Brian Westley (talk) 00:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

This is getting silly guys. I removed the following passage:

Because of the council's decision to follow national policy, the city wanted the council to vacate the office at 23rd and Winter Streets (next to the Franklin Institute science museum); this decision drew fire from Scouting officials and city residents who saw Scouting as an alternative to the "mean streets" of the depressed areas of the city. Afterward, the city reversed its decision because it threatened to become a campaign issue in the tough re-election fight Street faced against Republican Sam Katz in the upcoming mayoral election.{{Fact}}

thumb|right|Roger S. Firestone Scout Resource Center

In July 2006, Mayor Street (having won re-election) once again told the council to either change its policy and allow homosexuals to be members, pay fair market rent or leave the city-owned Marks Scout Resource Center. The city said that providing the city-owned property rent-free to the council violates Philadelphia's anti-discrimination laws. The BSA planned to fight to the city's decision.

In its place, I put neutral langauge that is sourcable with the sources already on the page. Hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.211.226 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 25 November 2007

• Fine by me. --evrik ^(talk) 14:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

New debate

cite 10

There is no verifiable info about the Scouts paying to build the building in that citation, or any other I can find. I currently (Dec 4, 2007) have the History and Social Sciences reference library of the Philadelphia Free Library checking the Quaker Scouting Yearbooks for 1927-1930 in their closed stacks for information on the origins of the building itself and the funding of its construction. Hopefully I'll have a good sourcing either way soon. Wickedthought 19:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"The land belongs to the City of Philadelphia but has been leased since 1928 for that token sum to the scouts, who built the landmark Beaux Arts building." Slobodzian, Joseph A. (October 17, 2007). "City hikes Boy Scouts' rent by $199,999 over gay ban". Philadelphia Inquirer. --evrik ^(talk) 17:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)