Talk:Grand Staircase–Escalante National Monument

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Utah portal This article is supported by WikiProject Utah (assessed as Mid-importance).

National Register of Historic Places High‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Protected areas Mid‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Protected areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected natural or ecological areas worldwide.Protected areasWikipedia:WikiProject Protected areasTemplate:WikiProject Protected areasProtected areas articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please clarify effect of reduction

Is the size listed before or after the decision by President Trump to greatly reduce the area? Do the three areas remaining correlate to Grand Staircase, the Kaiparowits Plateau, and the Canyons of the Escalante? Are there any plans to change the names? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.220.10 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Danger" section

As of today there's a new section entitled "Danger", which reads:

Several tourists have become lost, often from blindly or incorrectly following GPS navigation devices that don't always indicate the condition of smaller dirt roads or tracks. [4]

In 2003 a young couple was stranded for six days by a powerful snowstorm. The young woman died, but the man survived after he was found 15 miles from their buried vehicle on Four Mile Bench road.[4]

I don't think that this section belongs in this particular article, because it's not a problem unique to the GSENM but rather a problem with tourists and/or GPS devices in wild places in general. Comments? --R27182818 (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given lack of comment, I removed the section. --R27182818 (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. I agree that incorrect use of GPS or simply getting lost, because of it can happen anywhere, but in this particular park it seems to happen frequently enough and is potentially life threatening. One person died and another group was lucky to be found. A park spokesperson says dozens of groups have become lost since the park opened in 1996. It seems the unique terrain and or dangerous conditions make this a noteworthy fact. Perhaps a citation of the danger relative to other parks (more? less?) can be found, it would make an interesting addition, but people dying is noteworthy. I have restored the section. — Deon Steyn (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Deon. Thanks for participating.

I think you are correct: in order to keep the section, we need some verifiable evidence that the situation is meaningfully different from other parks/public lands in order to make the section appropriate. I don't think the evidence you cite above is enough, particularly given the lack of links. --R27182818 (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure on the appropriateness of this section, but... GSEM is unlike other US National Parks and Monuments in that there are many (non-controlled) entrances and very few signs. Most Parks and Monuments are pretty 'civilized' - ie, tourists can go there, get a map and obtain substantial information on where to go and what to see. GSEM is not like that. Ratagonia (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I would modify your assertion slightly. Many Western parks have large "wild" areas with non-controlled entrances and very few signs (e.g., Grand Canyon NP). What makes GSEN unusual is that is lacks the "civilized" core that other parks have. There are visitor centers, but they're outside the park, and there aren't any developed attractions.

I don't think that affects my central argument, though, which I will restate slightly in light of your input: in order to justify the section, we need verifiable evidence that the situation is meaningfully different from other uninhabited rural areas of the American West. --R27182818 (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There is no reason to prove that this park is more dangerous than other parks in order to justify this section. What I meant — and what I said — is that if there is additional information stating that errors of navigation are more or less common (or potentially fatal) in other parks then it can be added. If people also get lost and die in other parks then they also need sections describing this. People died and headline news articles followed, this merits inclusion regardless of whether we think it's okay or "par for the course". — Deon Steyn (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why I object to the section:

~~1. It's not verifiable: there are no citations.~~

2. It's not encyclopedic. I'd say useful questions about the getting-lost are things like how often do people get lost? and how does the getting-lost situation compare with other places?. The section as it stands simply asserts GSEN is dangerous without quantifying how dangerous or in comparison to what. You've cited anecdotes but no evidence. (Wikipedia is not a travel guide nor a newspaper.) The article Grand Canyon has a nice section on this sort of thing; if the section were modified to be more like that one I would support it.

So here's a question for you: what useful, encyclopedic questions posed by a reader can be answered by the section as it stands? --R27182818 (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On my personal site I have a link to appropriate precautions for wildland hikes[1] - the simple stuff like enough water (with caution about winter dry air), wildlife, etc. Should such a general article be created it would likely be attacked by the deletionists as being to "how to". Such an article could be linked to by a number of WP wildland articles however. Any consensus concerning such an article? I am willing to release all of the referenced article text to a free license. (My apologies for the typography on the site - I just ported to a new server that has some differences in HTML serving) - Leonard G. (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard, that content would surely be welcome. I don't think it merits its own article, but I'm sure you could work it into the hiking or backpacking articles, perhaps in a "Risks" section. Poke around a bit in that sphere and see where it fits. --R27182818 (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

In my opinion automobile traffic within the park is a greater hazard than getting lost using GPS equipment. I don't think the section is appropriate. A listing of all potential hazards would be endless and mostly obvious and not helpful, notable, useful or interesting --Calamitybrook (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danger section voting

Editors: please vote Keep or Delete, perhaps with a BRIEF explanation.Ratagonia (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: people die all over. In the backcountry people die when they get lost. Non-notable. Ratagonia (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: for reasons I cited above.Calamitybrook (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-encyclopedic; see above. --R27182818 (talk) 05:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we have consensus. I removed the section --R27182818 (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]