Talk:Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
|
 |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Utah, a WikiProject dedicated to articles related to the U.S. state of Utah. To participate: join (or just read up) at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. |
[edit] Controversy section
8-26-2005 Rewrote Controversy section for NPOV. If you object to my rewrite as being too environmentalist-friendly, I would appreciate the opportunity to collaborate with you to write an acceptable NPOV article, rather than getting into an edit-war. Please contact me with proposed changes (if you want). Ratagonia. Ratagonia 05:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] OutdoorZen.org
I removed the link http://www.outdoorzen.org/site/beta/escalante/ from the External Links section. Apparently this is controversial, so I would like to open a discussion on the link's appropriateness. I removed the link because:
- Registration is required to access some content ("Area Guides in PDF").
- The site seems information-light; I'm not sure what it adds in an encyclopedic sense.
- In particular, it's linked as "Canyoneering and Hiking Information", but I couldn't find much information: under "Information" section of the site is a brief section on ethics plus a passage excepted from one of Michael Kelsey's guidebooks, and that's it as far as I can tell.
Other thoughts? --R27182818 15:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I reverted your removal of the link because I felt the claim was inaccurate ("registration required...", not really). But I support removal of the EL for the reasons stated above - it is information-light, thus not a good candidate for inclusion. Ratagonia 16:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
